INTERNATIONAL GONGRESS OF MATHEMATIGIANS 2022 JULY 6 14  OF MATHEMATIGIANS  2022  JULY  6 − 14 {:[" OF MATHEMATIGIANS "],[2022" JULY "6-14]:}\begin{aligned} & \text { OF MATHEMATIGIANS } \\ & 2022 \text { JULY } 6-14\end{aligned} OF MATHEMATIGIANS 2022 JULY 6−14

SECTIONS 1-4

EDITED BY D. BELIAEV AND S. SMIRNOV

ICMM

SECTIONS 1-4

EDITED BY D. BELIAEV AND S. SMIRNOV

Editors

Dmitry Beliaev
Mathematical Institute
University of Oxford
Andrew Wiles Building
Radcliffe Observatory Quarter
Woodstock Road
Oxford OX2 6GG, UK
Email: belyaev@maths.ox.ac.uk
Stanislav Smirnov
Section de mathématiques
Université de Genève rue du Conseil-Général 7-9
1205 Genève, Switzerland
2020 Mathematics Subject Classification: 00B25
ISBN 978-3-98547-058-7, eISBN 978-3-98547-558-2, DOI 10.4171/ICM2O22

Volume 1. Prize Lectures

ISBN 978-3-98547-059-4, eISBN 978-3-98547-559-9, DOI 10.4171/ICM2022-1
Volume 2. Plenary Lectures
ISBN 978-3-98547-060-0, eISBN 978-3-98547-560-5, DOI 10.4171/ICM2022-2
→ rarr\rightarrow→ Volume 3. Sections 1-4
ISBN 978-3-98547-061-7, eISBN 978-3-98547-561-2, DOI 10.4171/ICM2022-3
Volume 4. Sections 5-8
ISBN 978-3-98547-062-4, eISBN 978-3-98547-562-9, DOI 10.4171/ICM2022-4
Volume 5. Sections 9-11
ISBN 978-3-98547-063-1, eISBN 978-3-98547-563-6, DOI 10.4171/ICM2022-5
Volume 6. Sections 12-14
ISBN 978-3-98547-064-8, eISBN 978-3-98547-564-3, DOI 10.4171/ICM2022-6
Volume 7. Sections 15-20
ISBN 978-3-98547-065-5, eISBN 978-3-98547-565-0, DOI 10.4171/ICM2022-7
The content of this volume is licensed under the CC BY 4.0 license, with the exception of the logos and branding of the International Mathematical Union and EMS Press, and where otherwise noted.
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;
detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.
Published by EMS Press, an imprint of the
European Mathematical Society - EMS - Publishing House GmbH
Institut für Mathematik
Technische Universität Berlin
Straße des 17. Juni 136
10623 Berlin, Germany
(c) 2023 International Mathematical Union
Typesetting using the authors' LaTeX sources: VTeX, Vilnius, Lithuania
Printed in Germany
@ Printed on acid free paper

CONTENTS

VOLUME 1

Foreword ..... V
International Congresses of Mathematicians ..... 1
Fields medalists and IMU prize winners ..... 3
Opening greetings by the IMU President ..... 5
Closing remarks by the IMU President ..... 9
Status report for the IMU ..... 11
Photographs ..... 21
THE WORK OF THE FIELDS MEDALISTS AND THE IMU PRIZE WINNERS
Martin Hairer, The work of Hugo Duminil-Copin ..... 26
Gil Kalai, The work of June Huh ..... 50
Kannan Soundararajan, The work of James Maynard ..... 66
Henry Cohn, The work of Maryna Viazovska ..... 82
Ran Raz, The work of Mark Braverman ..... 106
Henri Darmon, The work of Barry Mazur ..... 118
Rupert L. Frank, The work of Elliott Lieb ..... 142
Tadashi Tokieda, Nikolai Andreev and the art of mathematical animation and model-
building ..... 160

PRIZE LECTURES

Hugo Duminil-Copin, 100 years of the (critical) Ising model on the hypercubic
lattice ..... 164
June Huh, Combinatorics and Hodge theory ..... 212
James Maynard, Counting primes ..... 240
Maryna Viazovska, On discrete Fourier uniqueness sets in Euclidean space ..... 270
Mark Braverman, Communication and information complexity ..... 284
Nikolai Andreev, Popularization of math: sketches of Russian projects and traditions ..... 322
Marie-France Vignéras, Representations of p p ppp-adic groups over commutative rings ..... 332
POPULAR SCIENTIFIC EXPOSITIONS
Andrei Okounkov, The Ising model in our dimension and our times ..... 376
Andrei Okounkov, Combinatorial geometry takes the lead ..... 414
Andrei Okounkov, Rhymes in primes ..... 460
Andrei Okounkov, The magic of 8 and 24 ..... 492
SUMMARIES OF PRIZE WINNERS' WORK
Allyn Jackson, 2022 Abacus Medal: Mark Braverman ..... 548
Allyn Jackson, 2022 Chern Medal: Barry Mazur ..... 554
Allyn Jackson, 2022 Gauss Prize: Elliott H. Lieb ..... 560
Allyn Jackson, 2022 Leelavati Prize: Nikolai Andreev ..... 566
List of contributors ..... 571

VOLUME 2

SPECIAL PLENARY LECTURES

Kevin Buzzard, What is the point of computers? A question for pure mathematicians ..... 578
Frank Calegari, Reciprocity in the Langlands program since Fermat's Last Theorem ..... 610
Frans Pretorius, A survey of gravitational waves ..... 652
PLENARY LECTURES
Mladen Bestvina, Groups acting on hyperbolic spaces-a survey ..... 678
Bhargav Bhatt, Algebraic geometry in mixed characteristic ..... 712
Thierry Bodineau, Isabelle Gallagher, Laure Saint-Raymond, Sergio Simonella,
Dynamics of dilute gases: a statistical approach ..... 750
Alexander Braverman, David Kazhdan, Automorphic functions on moduli spaces of
bundles on curves over local fields: a survey ..... 796
Tobias Holck Colding, Evolution of form and shape ..... 826
Camillo De Lellis, The regularity theory for the area functional (in geometric mea-
sure theory) ..... 872
Weinan E, A mathematical perspective of machine learning ..... 914
Craig Gentry, Homomorphic encryption: a mathematical survey ..... 956
Alice Guionnet, Rare events in random matrix theory ..... 1008
Larry Guth, Decoupling estimates in Fourier analysis ..... 1054
Svetlana Jitomirskaya, One-dimensional quasiperiodic operators: global theory, dual-
ity, and sharp analysis of small denominators ..... 1090
Igor Krichever, Abelian pole systems and Riemann-Schottky-type problems . . ..... 1122
Alexander Kuznetsov, Semiorthogonal decompositions in families ..... 1154
Scott Sheffield, What is a random surface? ..... 1202
Kannan Soundararajan, The distribution of values of zeta and L-functions ..... 1260
Catharina Stroppel, Categorification: tangle invariants and TQFTs ..... 1312
Michel Van den Bergh, Noncommutative crepant resolutions, an overview ..... 1354
Avi Wigderson, Interactions of computational complexity theory and mathematics ..... 1392
List of contributors ..... 1433

VOLUME 3

1. LOGIC

Gal Binyamini, Dmitry Novikov, Tameness in geometry and arithmetic: beyond
o-minimality ..... 1440
Natasha Dobrinen, Ramsey theory of homogeneous structures: current trends and
open problems ..... 1462
Andrew S. Marks, Measurable graph combinatorics ..... 1488
Keita Yokoyama, The Paris-Harrington principle and second-order arithmetic-
bridging the finite and infinite Ramsey theorem ..... 1504

2. ALGEBRA

Pierre-Emmanuel Caprace, George A. Willis, A totally disconnected invitation to locally compact groups 1554
Neena Gupta, The Zariski cancellation problem and related problems in affine algebraic geometry
Syu Kato, The formal model of semi-infinite flag manifolds ..................... 1600
Michael J. Larsen, Character estimates for finite simple groups and applications . . 1624
Amnon Neeman, Finite approximations as a tool for studying triangulated categories 1636
Irena Peeva, Syzygies over a polynomial ring ....................................... 1660

3. NUMBER THEORY - SPECIAL LECTURE

Joseph H. Silverman, Survey lecture on arithmetic dynamics
1682

3. NUMBER THEORY

Ana Caraiani, The cohomology of Shimura varieties with torsion coefficients . . . 1744
Samit Dasgupta, Mahesh Kakde, On the Brumer-Stark conjecture and refinements 1768
Alexander Gamburd, Arithmetic and dynamics on varieties of Markoff type ...... 1800
Philipp Habegger, The number of rational points on a curve of genus at least two . 1838
Atsushi Ichino, Theta lifting and Langlands functoriality ........................ 1870
Dimitris Koukoulopoulos, Rational approximations of irrational numbers ........ 1894
David Loeffler, Sarah Livia Zerbes, Euler systems and the Bloch-Kato conjecture for
automorphic Galois representations . ................................................................. 1918
Lillian B. Pierce, Counting problems: class groups, primes, and number fields . . . 1940
Sug Woo Shin, Points on Shimura varieties modulo primes ....................... 1966
Ye Tian, The congruent number problem and elliptic curves .......................... 1990
Xinwen Zhu, Arithmetic and geometric Langlands program ....................... 2012

4. ALGEBRAIC AND COMPLEX GEOMETRY - SPECIAL LECTURE
Marc Levine, Motivic cohomology .................................................... 2048

4. ALGEBRAIC AND COMPLEX GEOMETRY

Mina Aganagic, Homological knot invariants from mirror symmetry ..... 2108
Aravind Asok, Jean Fasel, Vector bundles on algebraic varieties ..... 2146
Arend Bayer, Emanuele Macrì, The unreasonable effectiveness of wall-crossing in
algebraic geometry ..... 2172
Vincent Delecroix, Élise Goujard, Peter Zograf, Anton Zorich, Counting lattice
points in moduli spaces of quadratic differentials ..... 2196
Alexander I. Efimov, K-theory of large categories ..... 2212
Tamás Hausel, Enhanced mirror symmetry for Langlands dual Hitchin systems ..... 2228
Bruno Klingler, Hodge theory, between algebraicity and transcendence ..... 2250
Chi Li, Canonical Kähler metrics and stability of algebraic varieties ..... 2286
Aaron Pixton, The double ramification cycle formula ..... 2312
Yuri Prokhorov, Effective results in the three-dimensional minimal model program ..... 2324
Olivier Wittenberg, Some aspects of rational points and rational curves ..... 2346
List of contributors ..... 2369

VOLUME 4

5. GEOMETRY - SPECIAL LECTURES

Bruce Kleiner, Developments in 3D Ricci flow since Perelman ..... 2376
Richard Evan Schwartz, Survey lecture on billiards ..... 2392
5. GEOMETRY
Richard H. Bamler, Some recent developments in Ricci flow ..... 2432
Robert J. Berman, Emergent complex geometry ..... 2456
Danny Calegari, Sausages ..... 2484
Kai Cieliebak, Lagrange multiplier functionals and their applications in symplectic
geometry and string topology ..... 2504
Penka Georgieva, Real Gromov-Witten theory ..... 2530
Hiroshi Iritani, Gamma classes and quantum cohomology ..... 2552
Gang Liu, Kähler manifolds with curvature bounded below ..... 2576
Kathryn Mann, Groups acting at infinity ..... 2594
Mark McLean, Floer cohomology, singularities, and birational geometry ..... 2616
Iskander A. Taimanov, Surfaces via spinors and soliton equations ..... 2638
Lu Wang, Entropy in mean curvature flow ..... 2656
Robert J. Young, Composing and decomposing surfaces and functions ..... 2678
Xin Zhou, Mean curvature and variational theory ..... 2696
Xiaohua Zhu, Kähler-Ricci flow on Fano manifolds ..... 2718
6. TOPOLOGY
Jennifer Hom, Homology cobordism, knot concordance, and Heegaard Floer homol-
ogy ..... 2740
Daniel C. Isaksen, Guozhen Wang, Zhouli Xu, Stable homotopy groups of spheres
and motivic homotopy theory ..... 2768
Yi Liu, Surface automorphisms and finite covers ..... 2792
Roman Mikhailov, Homotopy patterns in group theory ..... 2806
Thomas Nikolaus, Frobenius homomorphisms in higher algebra ..... 2826
Oscar Randal-Williams, Diffeomorphisms of discs ..... 2856
Jacob Rasmussen, Floer homology of 3-manifolds with torus boundary ..... 2880
Nathalie Wahl, Homological stability: a tool for computations ..... 2904
7. LIE THEORY AND GENERALIZATIONS
Evgeny Feigin, PBW degenerations, quiver Grassmannians, and toric varieties ..... 2930
Tasho Kaletha, Representations of reductive groups over local fields . . ..... 2948
Joel Kamnitzer, Perfect bases in representation theory: three mountains and their
springs ..... 2976
Yiannis Sakellaridis, Spherical varieties, functoriality, and quantization ..... 2998
Peng Shan, Categorification and applications ..... 3038
Binyong Sun, Chen-Bo Zhu, Theta correspondence and the orbit method ..... 3062
Weiqiang Wang, Quantum symmetric pairs ..... 3080

8. ANALYSIS - SPECIAL LECTURE

Keith Ball, Convex geometry and its connections to harmonic analysis, functional analysis and probability theory ..... 3104

8. ANALYSIS

Benoît Collins, Moment methods on compact groups: Weingarten calculus and its
applications ..... 3142
Mikael de la Salle, Analysis on simple Lie groups and lattices ..... 3166
Xiumin Du, Weighted Fourier extension estimates and applications ..... 3190
Cyril Houdayer, Noncommutative ergodic theory of higher rank lattices ..... 3202
Malabika Pramanik, On some properties of sparse sets: a survey ..... 3224
Gideon Schechtman, The number of closed ideals in the algebra of bounded operators
on Lebesgue spaces ..... 3250
Pablo Shmerkin, Slices and distances: on two problems of Furstenberg and Falconer ..... 3266
Konstantin Tikhomirov, Quantitative invertibility of non-Hermitian random matrices ..... 3292
Stuart White, Abstract classification theorems for amenable C C ∗ C^(**)\mathrm{C}^{*}C∗-algebras ..... 3314
Tianyi Zheng, Asymptotic behaviors of random walks on countable groups ..... 3340
List of contributors ..... 3367
VOLUME 5
9. DYNAMICS
Miklós Abért, On a curious problem and what it lead to ..... 3374
Aaron Brown, Lattice subgroups acting on manifolds ..... 3388
Jon Chaika, Barak Weiss, The horocycle flow on the moduli space of translation
surfaces ..... 3412
Mark F. Demers, Topological entropy and pressure for finite-horizon Sinai billiards ..... 3432
Romain Dujardin, Geometric methods in holomorphic dynamics ..... 3460
David Fisher, Rigidity, lattices, and invariant measures beyond homogeneous dynam-
ics ..... 3484
Mariusz Lemańczyk, Furstenberg disjointness, Ratner properties, and Sarnak's con-
jecture ..... 3508
Amir Mohammadi, Finitary analysis in homogeneous spaces ..... 3530
Michela Procesi, Stability and recursive solutions in Hamiltonian PDEs ... ..... 3552
Corinna Ulcigrai, Dynamics and "arithmetics" of higher genus surface flows ..... 3576
Péter P. Varjú, Self-similar sets and measures on the line ..... 3610

10. PARTIAL DIFFERENTIAL EOUATIONS

Tristan Buckmaster, Theodore D. Drivas, Steve Shkoller, Vlad Vicol, Formation and
development of singularities for the compressible Euler equations ..... 3636
Pierre Cardaliaguet, François Delarue, Selected topics in mean field games ..... 3660
Semyon Dyatlov, Macroscopic limits of chaotic eigenfunctions ..... 3704
Rita Ferreira, Irene Fonseca, Raghavendra Venkatraman, Variational homogeniza-
tion: old and new ..... 3724
Rupert L. Frank, Lieb-Thirring inequalities and other functional inequalities for
orthonormal systems ..... 3756
Alexandru D. Ionescu, Hao Jia, On the nonlinear stability of shear flows and vortices ..... 3776
Mathieu Lewin, Mean-field limits for quantum systems and nonlinear Gibbs mea-
sures ..... 3800
Kenji Nakanishi, Global dynamics around and away from solitons ..... 3822
Alexander I. Nazarov, Variety of fractional Laplacians ..... 3842
Galina Perelman, Formation of singularities in nonlinear dispersive PDEs ..... 3854
Gabriella Tarantello, On the asymptotics for minimizers of Donaldson functional in
Teichmüller theory ..... 3880
Dongyi Wei, Zhifei Zhang, Hydrodynamic stability at high Reynolds number ..... 3902
11. MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS - SPECIAL LECTURE
Peter Hintz, Gustav Holzegel, Recent progress in general relativity ..... 3924
11. MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS
Roland Bauerschmidt, Tyler Helmuth, Spin systems with hyperbolic symmetry:
a survey ..... 3986
Federico Bonetto, Eric Carlen, Michael Loss, The Kac model: variations on a theme ..... 4010
Søren Fournais, Jan Philip Solovej, On the energy of dilute Bose gases ..... 4026
Alessandro Giuliani, Scaling limits and universality of Ising and dimer models . . ..... 4040
Matthew B. Hastings, Gapped quantum systems: from higher-dimensional Lieb-
Schultz-Mattis to the quantum Hall effect ..... 4074
Karol Kajetan Kozlowski, Bootstrap approach to 1+1-dimensional integrable quan-
tum field theories: the case of the sinh-Gordon model ..... 4096
Jonathan Luk, Singularities in general relativity ..... 4120
Yoshiko Ogata, Classification of gapped ground state phases in quantum spin sys-
tems ..... 4142
List of contributors ..... 4163
VOLUME 6
12. PROBABILITY - SPECIAL LECTURE
Elchanan Mossel, Combinatorial statistics and the sciences ..... 4170
12. PROBABILITY
Jinho Baik, KPZ limit theorems ..... 4190
Jian Ding, Julien Dubédat, Ewain Gwynne, Introduction to the Liouville quantum
gravity metric ..... 4212
Ronen Eldan, Analysis of high-dimensional distributions using pathwise methods ..... 4246
Alison Etheridge, Natural selection in spatially structured populations ..... 4272
Tadahisa Funaki, Hydrodynamic limit and stochastic PDEs related to interface
motion ..... 4302
Patrícia Gonçalves, On the universality from interacting particle systems ..... 4326
Hubert Lacoin, Mixing time and cutoff for one-dimensional particle systems ..... 4350
Dmitry Panchenko, Ultrametricity in spin glasses ..... 4376
Kavita Ramanan, Interacting stochastic processes on sparse random graphs ..... 4394
Daniel Remenik, Integrable fluctuations in the KPZ universality class ..... 4426
Laurent Saloff-Coste, Heat kernel estimates on Harnack manifolds and beyond ..... 4452
13. COMBINATORICS - SPECIAL LECTURE
Melanie Matchett Wood, Probability theory for random groups arising in number
theory
4476
13. COMBINATORICS
Federico Ardila-Mantilla, The geometry of geometries: matroid theory, old and new ..... 4510
Julia Böttcher, Graph and hypergraph packing ..... 4542
Ehud Friedgut, KKL's influence on me ..... 4568
Allen Knutson, Schubert calculus and quiver varieties ..... 4582
Sergey Norin, Recent progress towards Hadwiger's conjecture ..... 4606
Isabella Novik, Face numbers: the upper bound side of the story ..... 4622
Mathias Schacht, Restricted problems in extremal combinatorics ..... 4646
Alex Scott, Graphs of large chromatic number ..... 4660
Asaf Shapira, Local-vs-global combinatorics ..... 4682
Lauren K. Williams, The positive Grassmannian, the amplituhedron, and cluster alge-
bras ..... 4710
14. MATHEMATICS OF COMPUTER SCIENCE - SPECIAL LECTURES
Cynthia Dwork, Differential privacy: getting more for less ..... 4740
Aayush Jain, Huijia Lin, Amit Sahai, Indistinguishability obfuscation ... ..... 4762
David Silver, Andre Barreto, Simulation-based search control ..... 4800
Bernd Sturmfels, Beyond linear algebra ..... 4820
14. MATHEMATICS OF COMPUTER SCIENCE
Roy Gotlib, Tali Kaufman, Nowhere to go but high: a perspective on high-dimensional
expanders ..... 4842
Jelani Nelson, Forty years of frequent items ..... 4872
Oded Regev, Some questions related to the reverse Minkowski theorem ..... 4898
Muli (Shmuel) Safra, Mathematics of computation through the lens of linear equa-
tions and lattices ..... 4914
Ola Svensson, Polyhedral techniques in combinatorial optimization: matchings and
tours ..... 4970
Thomas Vidick, MIP* = = === RE: a negative resolution to Connes' embedding problem
and Tsirelson's problem ..... 4996
List of contributors ..... 5027

VOLUME 7

15. NUMERICAL ANALYSIS AND SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING

Gang Bao, Mathematical analysis and numerical methods for inverse scattering problems
Marsha J. Berger, Randall J. LeVeque, Towards adaptive simulations of dispersive
tsunami propagation from an asteroid impact ..... 5056
Jan S. Hesthaven, Cecilia Pagliantini, Nicolò Ripamonti, Structure-preserving model
order reduction of Hamiltonian systems ..... 5072
Nicholas J. Higham, Numerical stability of algorithms at extreme scale and low pre-
cisions ..... 5098
Gitta Kutyniok, The mathematics of artificial intelligence ..... 5118
Rachel Ward, Stochastic gradient descent: where optimization meets machine learn-
ing ..... 5140
Lexing Ying, Solving inverse problems with deep learning ..... 5154
16. CONTROL THEORY AND OPTIMIZATION - SPECIAL LECTURE
Nikhil Bansal, Discrepancy theory and related algorithms ..... 5178
16. CONTROL THEORY AND OPTIMIZATION
Regina S. Burachik, Enlargements: a bridge between maximal monotonicity and con-
vexity ..... 5212
Martin Burger, Nonlinear eigenvalue problems for seminorms and applications ..... 5234
Coralia Cartis, Nicholas I. M. Gould, Philippe L. Toint, The evaluation complexity
of finding high-order minimizers of nonconvex optimization ..... 5256
Yu-Hong Dai, An overview of nonlinear optimization ..... 5290
Qi Lü, Control theory of stochastic distributed parameter systems: recent progress
and open problems ..... 5314
Asuman Ozdaglar, Muhammed O. Sayin, Kaiqing Zhang, Independent learning in
stochastic games ..... 5340
Marius Tucsnak, Reachable states for infinite-dimensional linear systems: old and
new ..... 5374
17. STATISTICS AND DATA ANALYSIS
Francis Bach, Lénaïc Chizat, Gradient descent on infinitely wide neural networks:
global convergence and generalization ..... 5398
Bin Dong, On mathematical modeling in image reconstruction and beyond . . ..... 5420
Stefanie Jegelka, Theory of graph neural networks: representation and learning ..... 5450
Oleg V. Lepski, Theory of adaptive estimation ..... 5478
Gábor Lugosi, Mean estimation in high dimension ..... 5500
Richard Nickl, Gabriel P. Paternain, On some information-theoretic aspects of non-
linear statistical inverse problems ..... 5516
Bernhard Schölkopf, Julius von Kügelgen, From statistical to causal learning ..... 5540
Cun-Hui Zhang, Second- and higher-order Gaussian anticoncentration inequalities
and error bounds in Slepian's comparison theorem ..... 5594
18. STOCHASTIC AND DIFFERENTIAL MODELLING
Jacob Bedrossian, Alex Blumenthal, Sam Punshon-Smith, Lower bounds on the Lya-
punov exponents of stochastic differential equations ..... 5618
Nicolas Champagnat, Sylvie Méléard, Viet Chi Tran, Multiscale eco-evolutionary
models: from individuals to populations ..... 5656
Hyeonbae Kang, Quantitative analysis of field concentration in presence of closely
located inclusions of high contrast ..... 5680
19. MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION AND POPULARIZATION OF MATHEMATICS
Clara I. Grima, The hug of the scutoid ..... 5702
Anna Sfard, The long way from mathematics to mathematics education: how edu-
cational research may change one's vision of mathematics and of its learning and
teaching ..... 5716
20. HISTORY OF MATHEMATICS
June Barrow-Green, George Birkhoff's forgotten manuscript and his programme for
dynamics ..... 5748
Annette Imhausen, Some uses and associations of mathematics, as seen from a distant
historical perspective ..... 5772
Krishnamurthi Ramasubramanian, The history and historiography of the discovery
of calculus in India ..... 5784
List of contributors ..... 5813
  1. LOGIC

TAMENESS IN GEOMETRY AND ARITHMETIC: BEYOND O-MINIMALITY

GAL BINYAMINI AND DMITRY NOVIKOV

Abstract

The theory of o-minimal structures provides a powerful framework for the study of geometrically tame structures. In the past couple of decades a deep link connecting o-minimality to algebraic and arithmetic geometry has been developing. It has been clear, however, that the axioms of o-minimality do not fully capture some algebro-arithmetic aspects of tameness that one may expect in structures arising from geometry. We propose a notion of sharply o-minimal structures refining the standard axioms of o-minimality, and outline through conjectures and various partial results the potential development of this theory in parallel to the standard one.

We illustrate some applications of this emerging theory in two main directions. First, we show how it can be used to deduce Galois orbit lower bounds-notably including in nonabelian contexts where the standard transcendence methods do not apply. Second, we show how it can be used to derive effectivity and (polynomial-time) computability results for various problems of unlikely intersection around the Manin-Mumford, André-Oort, and Zilber-Pink conjectures.

MATHEMATICS SUBJECT CLASSIFICATION 2020

Primary 03C64; Secondary 11U09, 32B20, 14G05

KEYWORDS

o-minimality, point counting, Pila-Wilkie theorem, André-Oort theorem, Yomdin-Gromov parameterization

1. TAME GEOMETRY AND ARITHMETIC

1.1. O-minimal structures

The theory of o-minimal structures was introduced by van den Dries as an attempt to provide a framework of tame topology in the spirit of Grothendieck's "Esquisse d'un Programme" [42]. We refer the reader to this book for a general introduction to the subject and its history. For us, an o-minimal structure will always be an expansion of the ordered real field R alg := { R , + , , < } R alg  := { R , + , ⋅ , < } R_("alg "):={R,+,*, < }\mathbb{R}_{\text {alg }}:=\{\mathbb{R},+, \cdot,<\}Ralg :={R,+,⋅,<}. Briefly, such an expansion is o-minimal if all definable subsets of R R R\mathbb{R}R consist of finite unions of points and intervals.
Despite their apparent simplicity, it turns out that the axioms of o-minimality provide a broad framework of tame topology. In particular, one has good notions of dimension, smooth stratification, triangulation, and cell-decomposition for every definable set in an o-minimal structure. On the other hand, several natural and important structures turn out to be o-minimal. A few examples of particular importance for us in the present paper are R a l g , R a n , R a n , e x p R a l g , R a n , R a n , e x p R_(alg),R_(an),R_(an,exp)\mathbb{R}_{\mathrm{alg}}, \mathbb{R}_{\mathrm{an}}, \mathbb{R}_{\mathrm{an}, \mathrm{exp}}Ralg,Ran,Ran,exp, and R Pfaff. R Pfaff.  R_("Pfaff. ")\mathbb{R}_{\text {Pfaff. }}RPfaff. . We will say a bit more on these in later sections.

1.2. Pila-Wilkie counting theorem

In [37], Pila and Wilkie discovered a "counting theorem" that would later find deep applications in arithmetic geometry. The theorem concerns the asymptotic density of rational (or algebraic) points in a definable set-as a function of height. We introduce this first, to motivate a broader discussion of the connection between tame geometry and arithmetic.
For x Q x ∈ Q x inQx \in \mathbb{Q}x∈Q, we denote by H ( x ) H ( x ) H(x)H(x)H(x) the standard height of x x xxx. For a vector x Q n x ∈ Q n x inQ^(n)x \in \mathbb{Q}^{n}x∈Qn, we denote by H ( x ) H ( x ) H(x)H(x)H(x) the maximum among the heights of the coordinates of x x xxx. For a set A R n A ⊂ R n A subR^(n)A \subset \mathbb{R}^{n}A⊂Rn, we denote the set of Q Q Q\mathbb{Q}Q-points of A A AAA by A ( Q ) = A Q n A ( Q ) = A ∩ Q n A(Q)=A nnQ^(n)A(\mathbb{Q})=A \cap \mathbb{Q}^{n}A(Q)=A∩Qn and denote
(1.1) A ( Q , H ) := { x A ( Q ) : H ( x ) H } (1.1) A ( Q , H ) := { x ∈ A ( Q ) : H ( x ) ⩽ H } {:(1.1)A(Q","H):={x in A(Q):H(x) <= H}:}\begin{equation*} A(\mathbb{Q}, H):=\{x \in A(\mathbb{Q}): H(x) \leqslant H\} \tag{1.1} \end{equation*}(1.1)A(Q,H):={x∈A(Q):H(x)⩽H}
For a set A R n A ⊂ R n A subR^(n)A \subset \mathbb{R}^{n}A⊂Rn, we define the algebraic part A alg A alg  A^("alg ")A^{\text {alg }}Aalg  of A A AAA to be the union of all connected semialgebraic subsets of A A AAA of positive dimension. We define the transcendental part A trans A trans  A^("trans ")A^{\text {trans }}Atrans  of A A AAA to be A A alg A ∖ A alg  A\\A^("alg ")A \backslash A^{\text {alg }}A∖Aalg .
Theorem 1 (Pila and Wilkie [37]). Let A R m A ⊂ R m A subR^(m)A \subset \mathbb{R}^{m}A⊂Rm be a set definable in an o-minimal structure. Then for every ϵ > 0 ϵ > 0 epsilon > 0\epsilon>0ϵ>0 there exists a constant C ( A , ϵ ) C ( A , ϵ ) C(A,epsilon)C(A, \epsilon)C(A,ϵ) such that for every H 1 H ⩾ 1 H >= 1H \geqslant 1H⩾1,
(1.2) # A trans ( Q , H ) = C ( A , ϵ ) H ϵ (1.2) # A trans  ( Q , H ) = C ( A , ϵ ) H ϵ {:(1.2)#A^("trans ")(Q","H)=C(A","epsilon)H^(epsilon):}\begin{equation*} \# A^{\text {trans }}(\mathbb{Q}, H)=C(A, \epsilon) H^{\epsilon} \tag{1.2} \end{equation*}(1.2)#Atrans (Q,H)=C(A,ϵ)Hϵ

1.3. Transcendence methods, auxiliary polynomials

The use of transcendental (as opposed to algebraic) methods in the study of arithmetic questions has a long history. A common theme in these methods, running through the work of Schneider, Lang, Baker, Masser, and Wüstholz to name a few, is the use of auxiliary polynomials. We refer to [28] for a broad treatment of this subject.
The usefulness of polynomials in this context stems from their dual algebraic/analytic role. Suppose one is interested in the set A ( Q , H ) A ( Q , H ) A(Q,H)A(\mathbb{Q}, H)A(Q,H) for some analytic set A A AAA. On the one hand, if a polynomial P P PPP, say, with integer coefficients, is evaluated at x A ( Q , H ) x ∈ A ( Q , H ) x in A(Q,H)x \in A(\mathbb{Q}, H)x∈A(Q,H) then P ( x ) P ( x ) P(x)P(x)P(x) is again rational, and one can estimate its height in terms of H H HHH and the height of P P PPP. On
the other hand, polynomials are extremely well-behaved analytic functions, and a variety of analytic methods may be used to prove upper bounds on the restriction of P P PPP to an analytic set A A AAA assuming it is appropriately constructed (say to vanish to high order at some points of A ) A ) A)A)A). One concludes from such an argument that P P PPP must vanish at every point in A ( Q , H ) A ( Q , H ) A(Q,H)A(\mathbb{Q}, H)A(Q,H), for otherwise the height bound would contradict the upper bound.
The proof of the Pila-Wilkie counting theorem follows this classical line. However, it is fairly unique in the realm of transcendence methods in that the degrees of the auxiliary polynomials P P PPP are independent of the height, depending in fact only on ε ε epsi\varepsilonε. It is this unusual feature that makes it possible to prove the Pila-Wilkie theorem in the vast generality of o-minimal structures: polynomials of a given degree form a definable family, and the general machinery of o-minimality gives various finiteness statements uniformly for all such polynomials.

1.4. Beyond Pila-Wilkie theorem: the Wilkie conjecture

By contrast with the Pila-Wilkie theorem, most transcendence methods require the degrees of the auxiliary polynomials to depend on the height H H HHH of the points being considered-sometimes logarithmically and in some cases, such as the Schneider-Lang theorem, even linearly. A famous conjecture that seems to fall within this category is due to Wilkie.
Conjecture 2 (Wilkie [37]). Let A R m A ⊂ R m A subR^(m)A \subset \mathbb{R}^{m}A⊂Rm be a set definable in R exp R exp R_(exp)\mathbb{R}_{\exp }Rexp. Then there exist constants C ( A ) , κ ( A ) C ( A ) , κ ( A ) C(A),kappa(A)C(A), \kappa(A)C(A),κ(A) such that for all H 3 H ⩾ 3 H >= 3H \geqslant 3H⩾3,
(1.3) # A t r a n s ( Q , H ) = C ( A ) ( log H ) κ ( A ) (1.3) # A t r a n s ( Q , H ) = C ( A ) ( log ⁡ H ) κ ( A ) {:(1.3)#A^(trans)(Q","H)=C(A)(log H)^(kappa(A)):}\begin{equation*} \# A^{\mathrm{trans}}(\mathbb{Q}, H)=C(A)(\log H)^{\kappa(A)} \tag{1.3} \end{equation*}(1.3)#Atrans(Q,H)=C(A)(log⁡H)κ(A)
The conclusion of the Wilkie conjecture is known to fail for general o-minimal structures, for instance, in R an R an  R_("an ")\mathbb{R}_{\text {an }}Ran  [40]. To achieve such asymptotics, it seems one would have to use auxiliary polynomials of degrees d = ( log H ) q d = ( log ⁡ H ) q d=(log H)^(q)d=(\log H)^{q}d=(log⁡H)q, and o-minimality places no restrictions on the geometric complexity as a function of d d ddd.
In formulating his conjecture, Wilkie was probably influenced by Khovanskii's theory of fewnomials [25]. The latter implies fairly sharp bounds for the number of connected components of sets defined using algebraic and exponential functions (and more generally Pfaffian functions) as a function of the degrees of the equations involved. Below we attempt to axiomatize what it would mean for an arbitrary o-minimal structure to satisfy such sharp complexity bounds.

2. SHARPLY O-MINIMAL STRUCTURES

In this section we introduce sharply o-minimal structures, which are meant to endow a standard o-minimal structure with an appropriate notions comparable to dimension and degree in the algebraic case, and provide suitable control over these parameters under the basic logical operations. We first introduce the notion of a format-degree filtration (abbreviated F D F D FDF DFD-filtration) on a structure S S SSS. This is a collection Ω = { Ω F , D } F , D N Ω = Ω F , D F , D ∈ N Omega={Omega_(F,D)}_(F,D inN)\Omega=\left\{\Omega_{\mathcal{F}, D}\right\}_{\mathcal{F}, D \in \mathbb{N}}Ω={ΩF,D}F,D∈N such that each
Ω F , D Ω F , D Omega_(F,D)\Omega_{\mathscr{F}, D}ΩF,D is a collection of definable sets (possibly of different ambient dimensions), with
(2.1) Ω F , D Ω F + 1 , D Ω F , D + 1 F , D N (2.1) Ω F , D ⊂ Ω F + 1 , D ∩ Ω F , D + 1 ∀ F , D ∈ N {:(2.1)Omega_(F,D)subOmega_(F+1,D)nnOmega_(F,D+1)quad AAF","D inN:}\begin{equation*} \Omega_{\mathcal{F}, D} \subset \Omega_{\mathcal{F}+1, D} \cap \Omega_{\mathcal{F}, D+1} \quad \forall \mathcal{F}, D \in \mathbb{N} \tag{2.1} \end{equation*}(2.1)ΩF,D⊂ΩF+1,D∩ΩF,D+1∀F,D∈N
and F , D Ω â‹ƒ F , D   Ω uuu_(F,D)Omega\bigcup_{\mathcal{F}, D} \Omega⋃F,DΩ is the collection of all definable sets in S S S\mathcal{S}S. We call the sets in Ω F , D Ω F , D Omega_(F,D)\Omega_{\mathcal{F}, D}ΩF,D sets of format F F F\mathscr{F}F and degree D. However, note that the format and degree of a set are not uniquely defined since Ω Î© Omega\OmegaΩ is a filtration rather than a partition.
We now come to the notion of a sharply o-minimal structure.
Definition 3 (Sharply o-minimal structure). A sharply o-minimal structure is a pair Σ := ( S , Ω ) Σ := ( S , Ω ) Sigma:=(S,Omega)\Sigma:=(S, \Omega)Σ:=(S,Ω) consisting of an o-minimal expansion of the real field S S SSS and an FD-filtration Ω Î© Omega\OmegaΩ; and for each F N F ∈ N FinN\mathscr{F} \in \mathbb{N}F∈N, a polynomial P F ( ) P F ( â‹… ) P_(F)(*)P_{\mathcal{F}}(\cdot)PF(â‹…) such that the following holds:
If A Ω F , D A ∈ Ω F , D A inOmega_(F,D)A \in \Omega_{\mathcal{F}, D}A∈ΩF,D then
(1) if A R A ⊂ R A subRA \subset \mathbb{R}A⊂R, it has at most P F ( D ) P F ( D ) P_(F)(D)P_{\mathcal{F}}(D)PF(D) connected components,
(2) if A R A ⊂ R ℓ A subR^(ℓ)A \subset \mathbb{R}^{\ell}A⊂Rℓ then F F ⩾ ℓ F >= ℓ\mathcal{F} \geqslant \ellF⩾ℓ,
(3) A c , π 1 ( A ) , A × R A c , Ï€ â„“ − 1 ( A ) , A × R A^(c),pi_(â„“-1)(A),A xxRA^{c}, \pi_{\ell-1}(A), A \times \mathbb{R}Ac,πℓ−1(A),A×R, and R × A R × A Rxx A\mathbb{R} \times AR×A lie in Ω F + 1 , D Ω F + 1 , D Omega_(F+1,D)\Omega_{\mathscr{F}+1, D}ΩF+1,D.
Similarly if A 1 , , A k R A 1 , … , A k ⊂ R â„“ A_(1),dots,A_(k)subR^(â„“)A_{1}, \ldots, A_{k} \subset \mathbb{R}^{\ell}A1,…,Ak⊂Râ„“ with A j Ω F j , D j A j ∈ Ω F j , D j A_(j)inOmega_(F_(j),D_(j))A_{j} \in \Omega_{\mathcal{F}_{j}, D_{j}}Aj∈ΩFj,Dj then
(4) i A i Ω F , D , (5) i A i Ω F + 1 , D  (4)  ⋃ i   A i ∈ Ω F , D ,  (5)  â‹‚ i   A i ∈ Ω F + 1 , D " (4) "uuu_(i)A_(i)inOmega_(F,D),quad" (5) "nnn_(i)A_(i)inOmega_(F+1,D)\text { (4) } \bigcup_{i} A_{i} \in \Omega_{\mathcal{F}, D}, \quad \text { (5) } \bigcap_{i} A_{i} \in \Omega_{\mathscr{F}+1, D} (4) ⋃iAi∈ΩF,D, (5) ⋂iAi∈ΩF+1,D
where F := max j F j F := max j   F j F:=max_(j)F_(j)\mathscr{F}:=\max _{j} \mathscr{F}_{j}F:=maxjFj and D = j D j D = ∑ j   D j D=sum_(j)D_(j)D=\sum_{j} D_{j}D=∑jDj. Finally,
(6) if P R [ x 1 , , x ] P ∈ R x 1 , … , x â„“ P inR[x_(1),dots,x_(â„“)]P \in \mathbb{R}\left[x_{1}, \ldots, x_{\ell}\right]P∈R[x1,…,xâ„“] then { P = 0 } Ω , deg P { P = 0 } ∈ Ω â„“ , deg P {P=0}inOmega_(â„“,deg)P\{P=0\} \in \Omega_{\ell, \operatorname{deg}} P{P=0}∈Ωℓ,degP.
Given a collection { A α } A α {A_(alpha)}\left\{A_{\alpha}\right\}{Aα} of sets generating a structure S S S\mathcal{S}S, and associated formats and degrees F α , D α F α , D α F_(alpha),D_(alpha)\mathcal{F}_{\alpha}, D_{\alpha}Fα,Dα one can consider the minimal FD-filtration Ω Î© Omega\OmegaΩ satisfying the axioms (2)-(6) above. We call this the FD-filtration generated by { ( A α , F α , D α ) } A α , F α , D α {(A_(alpha),F_(alpha),D_(alpha))}\left\{\left(A_{\alpha}, \mathcal{F}_{\alpha}, D_{\alpha}\right)\right\}{(Aα,Fα,Dα)}. This will be sharply ominimal if and only if axiom (1) is satisfied.
Definition 4 (Reduction of FD-filtrations). Let Ω , Ω Î© , Ω ′ Omega,Omega^(')\Omega, \Omega^{\prime}Ω,Ω′ be two FD-filtrations on a structure S S SSS. We say that Ω Î© Omega\OmegaΩ is reducible to Ω Î© ′ Omega^(')\Omega^{\prime}Ω′ and write Ω Ω Î© ⩽ Ω ′ Omega <= Omega^(')\Omega \leqslant \Omega^{\prime}Ω⩽Ω′ if there exist functions a : N N a : N → N a:NrarrNa: \mathbb{N} \rightarrow \mathbb{N}a:N→N and b : N N [ D ] b : N → N [ D ] b:NrarrN[D]b: \mathbb{N} \rightarrow \mathbb{N}[D]b:N→N[D] such that
(2.2) Ω F , D Ω a ( F ) , [ b ( F ) ] ( D ) F , D N (2.2) Ω F , D ⊂ Ω a ( F ) , [ b ( F ) ] ( D ) ′ ∀ F , D ∈ N {:(2.2)Omega_(F,D)subOmega_(a(F),[b(F)](D))^(')quad AAF","D inN:}\begin{equation*} \Omega_{\mathscr{F}, D} \subset \Omega_{a(\mathscr{F}),[b(\mathscr{F})](D)}^{\prime} \quad \forall \mathcal{F}, D \in \mathbb{N} \tag{2.2} \end{equation*}(2.2)ΩF,D⊂Ωa(F),[b(F)](D)′∀F,D∈N
We say that Ω , Ω Î© , Ω ′ Omega,Omega^(')\Omega, \Omega^{\prime}Ω,Ω′ are equivalent if Ω Ω Ω Î© ⩽ Ω ′ ⩽ Ω Omega <= Omega^(') <= Omega\Omega \leqslant \Omega^{\prime} \leqslant \OmegaΩ⩽Ω′⩽Ω.
We will usually try to prove that certain measures of complexity of definable sets depend polynomially on the degree, thinking of the format as constant. If one can prove such a statement for Ω Î© ′ Omega^(')\Omega^{\prime}Ω′-degrees, and Ω Ω Î© ⩽ Ω ′ Omega <= Omega^(')\Omega \leqslant \Omega^{\prime}Ω⩽Ω′, then the same statement holds for Ω Î© Omega\OmegaΩ-degrees and in this sense Ω Î© Omega\OmegaΩ is reducible to Ω Î© ′ Omega^(')\Omega^{\prime}Ω′.
Remark 5 (Effectivity). One can require further that a sharply o-minimal structure is effective, in the sense that the polynomial P F ( D ) P F ( D ) P_(F)(D)P_{\mathcal{F}}(D)PF(D) in Definition 3 is given by some explicit primitive recursive function of F F F\mathscr{F}F. Similarly, one may require a reduction Ω Ω Î© ⩽ Ω ′ Omega <= Omega^(')\Omega \leqslant \Omega^{\prime}Ω⩽Ω′ to be effective. Unless otherwise stated, all constructions in this paper are effective in this sense.

2.1. Examples and nonexamples

2.1.1. The semialgebraic structure

Consider the structure R alg R alg  R_("alg ")\mathbb{R}_{\text {alg }}Ralg  with the FD-filtration Ω Î© Omega\OmegaΩ generated by all algebraic hypersurfaces { P = 0 } { P = 0 } {P=0}\{P=0\}{P=0} with the format given by the ambient dimension and the degree given by deg P deg ⁡ P deg P\operatorname{deg} Pdeg⁡P. Then ( R alg , Ω ) R alg  , Ω (R_("alg "),Omega)\left(\mathbb{R}_{\text {alg }}, \Omega\right)(Ralg ,Ω) is a sharply o-minimal structure. This is not an immediate statement: it follows from the results on effective cell decomposition, or elimination of quantifiers, in semialgebraic geometry [ 3 ] [ 3 ] [3][3][3].
Perhaps a more natural notion of format and degree in the semialgebraic category is as follows. Define Ω F , D Ω F , D ′ Omega_(F,D)^(')\Omega_{\mathcal{F}, D}^{\prime}ΩF,D′ to be the subsets of R R â„“ R^(â„“)\mathbb{R}^{\ell}Râ„“ with F â„“ ⩽ F â„“ <= F\ell \leqslant \mathcal{F}ℓ⩽F, that can be written as a union of basic sets
(2.3) { P 1 = = P k = 0 , Q 1 > 0 , , Q l > 0 } (2.3) P 1 = ⋯ = P k = 0 , Q 1 > 0 , … , Q l > 0 {:(2.3){P_(1)=cdots=P_(k)=0,Q_(1) > 0,dots,Q_(l) > 0}:}\begin{equation*} \left\{P_{1}=\cdots=P_{k}=0, Q_{1}>0, \ldots, Q_{l}>0\right\} \tag{2.3} \end{equation*}(2.3){P1=⋯=Pk=0,Q1>0,…,Ql>0}
with the sum of the degrees of the P i P i P_(i)P_{i}Pi and Q j Q j Q_(j)Q_{j}Qj, over all basic sets, bounded by D D DDD. This is not sharply o-minimal according to our definition because it does not satisfy axiom (3), for instance. However, it is equivalent to Ω Î© Omega\OmegaΩ defined above.

2.1.2. The analytic structure R an R an  R_("an ")\mathbb{R}_{\text {an }}Ran 

Not surprisingly, R an R an  R_("an ")\mathbb{R}_{\text {an }}Ran  is not sharply o-minimal with respect to any FD-filtration. Assume the contrary. Let ω 1 = 1 ω 1 = 1 omega_(1)=1\omega_{1}=1ω1=1 and ω n + 1 = 2 ω n ω n + 1 = 2 ω n omega_(n+1)=2^(omega_(n))\omega_{n+1}=2^{\omega_{n}}ωn+1=2ωn, and let Γ = { y = f ( z ) } C 2 Γ = { y = f ( z ) } ⊂ C 2 Gamma={y=f(z)}subC^(2)\Gamma=\{y=f(z)\} \subset \mathbb{C}^{2}Γ={y=f(z)}⊂C2 denote the graph of the holomorphic function f ( z ) = j = 1 z ω j f ( z ) = ∑ j = 1 ∞   z ω j f(z)=sum_(j=1)^(oo)z^(omega_(j))f(z)=\sum_{j=1}^{\infty} z^{\omega_{j}}f(z)=∑j=1∞zωj restricted to the disc of radius 1 / 2 1 / 2 1//21 / 21/2 (which is definable in R a n R a n R_(an)\mathbb{R}_{\mathrm{an}}Ran ). Then by axioms (1), (5) and (6), the number of points in
(2.4) Γ { y = ε + j = 1 n z ω j } (2.4) Γ ∩ y = ε + ∑ j = 1 n   z ω j {:(2.4)Gamma nn{y=epsi+sum_(j=1)^(n)z^(omega_(j))}:}\begin{equation*} \Gamma \cap\left\{y=\varepsilon+\sum_{j=1}^{n} z^{\omega_{j}}\right\} \tag{2.4} \end{equation*}(2.4)Γ∩{y=ε+∑j=1nzωj}
should be polynomial in ω n ω n omega_(n)\omega_{n}ωn, with the exact polynomial depending on the format and degree of Γ Î“ Gamma\GammaΓ. But it is, in fact, ω n + 1 = 2 ω n ω n + 1 = 2 ω n omega_(n+1)=2^(omega_(n))\omega_{n+1}=2^{\omega_{n}}ωn+1=2ωn for 0 < ε 1 0 < ε ≪ 1 0 < epsi≪10<\varepsilon \ll 10<ε≪1, and we have a contradiction for n 1 n ≫ 1 n≫1n \gg 1n≫1.

2.1.3. Pfaffian structures

Let B R B ⊂ R ℓ B subR^(ℓ)B \subset \mathbb{R}^{\ell}B⊂Rℓ be a domain, which for simplicity we take to be a product of (possibly infinite) intervals. A tuple f 1 , , f m : B R f 1 , … , f m : B → R f_(1),dots,f_(m):B rarrRf_{1}, \ldots, f_{m}: B \rightarrow \mathbb{R}f1,…,fm:B→R of analytic functions is called a Pfaffian chain if they satisfy a triangular system of algebraic differential equations of the form
(2.5) f i x j = P ( x 1 , , x , f 1 , , f i ) , i , j (2.5) ∂ f i ∂ x j = P x 1 , … , x ℓ , f 1 , … , f i , ∀ i , j {:(2.5)(delf_(i))/(delx_(j))=P(x_(1),dots,x_(ℓ),f_(1),dots,f_(i))","quad AA i","j:}\begin{equation*} \frac{\partial f_{i}}{\partial x_{j}}=P\left(x_{1}, \ldots, x_{\ell}, f_{1}, \ldots, f_{i}\right), \quad \forall i, j \tag{2.5} \end{equation*}(2.5)∂fi∂xj=P(x1,…,xℓ,f1,…,fi),∀i,j
They are called restricted if B B BBB is bounded and f 1 , , f m f 1 , … , f m f_(1),dots,f_(m)f_{1}, \ldots, f_{m}f1,…,fm extend as real analytic functions to B ¯ B ¯ bar(B)\bar{B}B¯. A Pfaffian function is a polynomial Q ( x 1 , , x , f 1 , , f m ) Q x 1 , … , x â„“ , f 1 , … , f m Q(x_(1),dots,x_(â„“),f_(1),dots,f_(m))Q\left(x_{1}, \ldots, x_{\ell}, f_{1}, \ldots, f_{m}\right)Q(x1,…,xâ„“,f1,…,fm). We denote the structure generated by the Pfaffian functions by R Pfaff R Pfaff  R_("Pfaff ")\mathbb{R}_{\text {Pfaff }}RPfaff , and its restricted analog by R r P f a f f R r P f a f f R_(rPfaff)\mathbb{R}_{\mathrm{rPfaff}}RrPfaff.
Khovanskii [25] proved upper bounds for the number of connected components of systems of Pfaffian equations. This was later extended by Gabrielov and Vorobjov to sets defined using inequalities and quantifiers [21]. However, their results fall short of establishing the sharp o-minimality of R r P f f a f f R r P f f a f f R_(rPffaff)\mathbb{R}_{\mathrm{rPffaff}}RrPffaff. The problem is that for Gabrielov-Vorobjov's notion of format and degree, if A Ω F , D A ∈ Ω F , D A inOmega_(F,D)A \in \Omega_{\mathscr{F}, D}A∈ΩF,D then they are only able to show that A c Ω P F ( D ) , P F ( D ) A c ∈ Ω P F ( D ) , P F ( D ) A^(c)inOmega_(P_(F)(D),P_(F)(D))A^{c} \in \Omega_{P_{\mathscr{F}}(D), P_{\mathscr{F}}(D)}Ac∈ΩPF(D),PF(D)
rather than A c Ω F + 1 , P F ( D ) A c ∈ Ω F + 1 , P F ( D ) A^(c)inOmega_(F+1,P_(F)(D))A^{c} \in \Omega_{\mathscr{F}+1, P_{\mathscr{F}}(D)}Ac∈ΩF+1,PF(D) as required by our axioms. This is a fundamental difficulty, as it is essential in our setup that the format never becomes dependent on the degree.
In [13] the first author and Vorobjov introduce a modified notion of format and degree and prove the following.
Theorem 6. There is an F D F D FDF DFD-filtration Ω Î© Omega\OmegaΩ on R r P f a f f R r P f a f f R_(rPfaff)\mathbb{R}_{\mathrm{rPfaff}}RrPfaff that makes it into a sharply o-minimal structure. Moreover, Gabrielov-Vorobjov's standard filtration is reducible to Ω Î© Omega\OmegaΩ.
We conjecture that this theorem extends to the structure R Pfaff R Pfaff  R_("Pfaff ")\mathbb{R}_{\text {Pfaff }}RPfaff , and this is the subject of work in progress by the first author and Vorobjov utilizing some additional ideas of Gabrielov [19].

2.2. Cell decomposition in sharply o-minimal structures

We recall the notion of a cell in an o-minimal structure. A cell C R C ⊂ R C subRC \subset \mathbb{R}C⊂R is either a point or an open interval (possibly infinite). A cell C R + 1 C ⊂ R ℓ + 1 C subR^(ℓ+1)C \subset \mathbb{R}^{\ell+1}C⊂Rℓ+1 is either the graph of a definable continuous function f : C R f : C ′ → R f:C^(')rarrRf: C^{\prime} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}f:C′→R where C R C ′ ⊂ R ℓ C^(')subR^(ℓ)C^{\prime} \subset \mathbb{R}^{\ell}C′⊂Rℓ is a cell, or the area strictly between two graphs of such definable continuous functions f , g : C R f , g : C ′ → R f,g:C^(')rarrRf, g: C^{\prime} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}f,g:C′→R satisfying f < g f < g f < gf<gf<g identically on C C ′ C^(')C^{\prime}C′. One can also take f = f = − ∞ f=-oof=-\inftyf=−∞ and g = g = ∞ g=oog=\inftyg=∞ in this definition.
We say that a cell C R C ⊂ R ℓ C subR^(ℓ)C \subset \mathbb{R}^{\ell}C⊂Rℓ is compatible with X R X ⊂ R ℓ X subR^(ℓ)X \subset \mathbb{R}^{\ell}X⊂Rℓ if it is either strictly contained, or strictly disjoint from X X XXX. The following cell decomposition theorem can be viewed as the raison d'être of the axioms of o-minimality.
Theorem 7 (Cell decomposition). Let X 1 , , X k R X 1 , … , X k ⊂ R ℓ X_(1),dots,X_(k)subR^(ℓ)X_{1}, \ldots, X_{k} \subset \mathbb{R}^{\ell}X1,…,Xk⊂Rℓ be definable sets. Then there is a decomposition of R R ℓ R^(ℓ)\mathbb{R}^{\ell}Rℓ into pairwise disjoint cells that are pairwise compatible with X 1 , , X k X 1 , … , X k X_(1),dots,X_(k)X_{1}, \ldots, X_{k}X1,…,Xk.
Given the importance of cell decomposition in the theory of o-minimality, it is natural to pose the following question.
Question 8. If S S SSS is sharply o-minimal and X 1 , , X k X 1 , … , X k X_(1),dots,X_(k)X_{1}, \ldots, X_{k}X1,…,Xk have format F F F\mathscr{F}F and degree D D DDD, can one find a cell-decomposition where each cell has format const ( F ) const ⁡ ( F ) const(F)\operatorname{const}(\mathcal{F})const⁡(F), and the number of cells and their degrees are bounded by poly F , F ( k , D ) F , F ( k , D ) _(F,F)(k,D){ }_{\mathcal{F}, \mathcal{F}}(k, D)F,F(k,D) ?
We suspect the answer to this question may be negative. Since cell decomposition is perhaps the most crucial construction in o-minimality, this is a fundamental problem. The following result rectifies the situation.
Theorem 9. Let ( S , Ω ) ( S , Ω ) (S,Omega)(\mathcal{S}, \Omega)(S,Ω) be sharply o-minimal. Then there exists another F D F D FDF DFD-filtration Ω Î© ′ Omega^(')\Omega^{\prime}Ω′ with ( S , Ω S , Ω ′ S,Omega^(')S, \Omega^{\prime}S,Ω′ ) sharply o-minimal such that Ω Ω Î© ⩽ Ω ′ Omega <= Omega^(')\Omega \leqslant \Omega^{\prime}Ω⩽Ω′, and in Ω Î© ′ Omega^(')\Omega^{\prime}Ω′ the following holds.
Let X 1 , , X k Ω F , D X 1 , … , X k ∈ Ω F , D ′ X_(1),dots,X_(k)inOmega_(F,D)^(')X_{1}, \ldots, X_{k} \in \Omega_{\mathcal{F}, D}^{\prime}X1,…,Xk∈ΩF,D′, all subsets of R R â„“ R^(â„“)\mathbb{R}^{\ell}Râ„“. Then there exists a cell decomposition of R R â„“ R^(â„“)\mathbb{R}^{\ell}Râ„“ compatible with each X j X j X_(j)X_{j}Xj such that each cell has format const ( F ) ( F ) (F)(\mathscr{F})(F), the number of cells is poly F ( k , D ) F ( k , D ) F(k,D)\mathcal{F}(k, D)F(k,D), and the degree of each cell is poly F ( D ) poly F ⁡ ( D ) poly_(F)(D)\operatorname{poly}_{\mathcal{F}}(D)polyF⁡(D).
In the structure R r P f a f f R r P f a f f R_(rPfaff)\mathbb{R}_{\mathrm{rPfaff}}RrPfaff, Theorem 9 is one of the main results of [13]. The general case is obtained by generalizing the proof to the general sharply o-minimal case, and is part of the P h D P h D PhD\mathrm{PhD}PhD thesis of Binyamin Zack-Kutuzov.

2.3. Yomdin-Gromov algebraic lemma in sharply o-minimal structures

Let I := ( 0 , 1 ) I := ( 0 , 1 ) I:=(0,1)I:=(0,1)I:=(0,1). For f : I n R m f : I n → R m f:I^(n)rarrR^(m)f: I^{n} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{m}f:In→Rm a C r C r C^(r)C^{r}Cr-smooth map, we denote
(2.6) f r := sup x I n max | α | r f ( α ) ( x ) (2.6) ∥ f ∥ r := sup x ∈ I n   max | α | ⩽ r   f ( α ) ( x ) {:(2.6)||f||_(r):=s u p_(x inI^(n))max_(|alpha| <= r)||f^((alpha))(x)||:}\begin{equation*} \|f\|_{r}:=\sup _{x \in I^{n}} \max _{|\alpha| \leqslant r}\left\|f^{(\alpha)}(x)\right\| \tag{2.6} \end{equation*}(2.6)∥f∥r:=supx∈Inmax|α|⩽r∥f(α)(x)∥
The Yomdin-Gromov algebraic lemma is a result about C r C r C^(r)C^{r}Cr-smooth parametrizations of bounded norm for definable subsets of I n I n I^(n)I^{n}In. A sharply o-minimal version of this lemma is as follows.
Lemma 10. Let ( S , Ω ) ( S , Ω ) (S,Omega)(\mathcal{S}, \Omega)(S,Ω) be sharply o-minimal. Then there is a polynomial P F , r ( ) P F , r ( â‹… ) P_(F,r)(*)P_{\mathcal{F}, r}(\cdot)PF,r(â‹…) depending on the pair ( F , r ) ( F , r ) (F,r)(\mathcal{F}, r)(F,r), such that for every A Ω F , D A ∈ Ω F , D A inOmega_(F,D)A \in \Omega_{\mathcal{F}, D}A∈ΩF,D the following holds. There exist a collection of maps { f α : I n α A } f α : I n α → A {f_(alpha):I^(n_(alpha))rarr A}\left\{f_{\alpha}: I^{n_{\alpha}} \rightarrow A\right\}{fα:Inα→A} of size at most P F , r ( D ) P F , r ( D ) P_(F,r)(D)P_{\mathcal{F}, r}(D)PF,r(D) such that α f α ( I n α ) = A ⋃ α   f α I n α = A uuu_(alpha)f_(alpha)(I^(n_(alpha)))=A\bigcup_{\alpha} f_{\alpha}\left(I^{n_{\alpha}}\right)=A⋃αfα(Inα)=A; and f α r 1 f α r ⩽ 1 ||f_(alpha)||_(r) <= 1\left\|f_{\alpha}\right\|_{r} \leqslant 1∥fα∥r⩽1 and n α dim A n α ⩽ dim ⁡ A n_(alpha) <= dim An_{\alpha} \leqslant \operatorname{dim} Anα⩽dim⁡A for every α α alpha\alphaα.
In the algebraic case, this result is due to Gromov [23], based on a similar but slightly more technically involved statement by Yomdin [44]. In the general o-minimal case, but without complexity bounds, the result is due to Pila and Wilkie [37]. In the restricted Pfaffian case, this result is due to the first author with Jones, Schmidt, and Thomas [6] using Theorem 9 in the R r P f a f f R r P f a f f R_(rPfaff)\mathbb{R}_{\mathrm{rPfaff}}RrPfaff case. The general case follows in the same way.
The following conjecture seems plausible, though we presently do not have an approach to proving it in this generality.
Conjecture 11. In Lemma 10, one can replace P F , r ( D ) P F , r ( D ) P_(F,r)(D)P_{\mathcal{F}, r}(D)PF,r(D) by a P F ( D , r ) P F ( D , r ) P_(F)(D,r)P_{\mathcal{F}}(D, r)PF(D,r), i.e., by a polynomial in both D D DDD and r r rrr, depending only on F F F\mathcal{F}F.
In the structure R alg R alg  R_("alg ")\mathbb{R}_{\text {alg }}Ralg  this was conjectured by Yomdin (unpublished) and by Burguet [14], in relation to a conjecture of Yomdin [45, CONJECTURE 6.1] concerning the rate of decay of the tail entropy for real-analytic mappings. The conjecture was proved in [9] by complexanalytic methods. We will say more about the possible generalization of these methods to more general sharply o-minimal structures in Section 3.

2.4. Pila-Wilkie theorem in sharply o-minimal structures

We now state a form of the Pila-Wilkie counting theorem, Theorem 1, with explicit control over the asymptotic constant.
Theorem 12. Let ( S , Ω ) ( S , Ω ) (S,Omega)(S, \Omega)(S,Ω) be sharply o-minimal. Then for every ϵ > 0 ϵ > 0 epsilon > 0\epsilon>0ϵ>0 and F F F\mathcal{F}F there is a polynomial P F , ϵ ( ) P F , ϵ ( â‹… ) P_(F,epsilon)(*)P_{\mathcal{F}, \epsilon}(\cdot)PF,ϵ(â‹…) depending on ( S , Ω ) ( S , Ω ) (S,Omega)(\mathcal{S}, \Omega)(S,Ω), such that for every A Ω F , D A ∈ Ω F , D A inOmega_(F,D)A \in \Omega_{\mathcal{F}, D}A∈ΩF,D and H 2 H ⩾ 2 H >= 2H \geqslant 2H⩾2,
(2.7) # A trans ( Q , H ) = P F , ϵ ( D ) H ϵ (2.7) # A trans  ( Q , H ) = P F , ϵ ( D ) â‹… H ϵ {:(2.7)#A^("trans ")(Q","H)=P_(F,epsilon)(D)*H^(epsilon):}\begin{equation*} \# A^{\text {trans }}(\mathbb{Q}, H)=P_{\mathcal{F}, \epsilon}(D) \cdot H^{\epsilon} \tag{2.7} \end{equation*}(2.7)#Atrans (Q,H)=PF,ϵ(D)â‹…Hϵ
This result is based on Lemma 10, in the same way as the classical Pila-Wilkie theorem is based on the o-minimal reparametrization lemma. This reduction is carried out in [6] using Theorem 9 in the R r P f a f f R r P f a f f R_(rPfaff)\mathbb{R}_{\mathrm{rPfaff}}RrPfaff case. The general case follows in the same way.

2.5. Polylog counting in sharply o-minimal structures

We state a conjectural sharpening of the Pila-Wilkie theorem, in line with the Wilkie conjecture, in the context of sharply o-minimal structures. For A R A ⊂ R ℓ A subR^(ℓ)A \subset \mathbb{R}^{\ell}A⊂Rℓ, let
(2.8) A ( g , h ) := { x A Q ¯ : [ Q ( x ) : Q ] g , h ( x ) h } , (2.8) A ( g , h ) := x ∈ A ∩ Q ¯ â„“ : [ Q ( x ) : Q ] ⩽ g , h ( x ) ⩽ h , {:(2.8)A(g","h):={x inAnn bar(Q)^(â„“):[Q(x):Q] <= g,h(x) <= h}",":}\begin{equation*} A(g, h):=\left\{x \in \mathbb{A} \cap \overline{\mathbb{Q}}^{\ell}:[\mathbb{Q}(x): \mathbb{Q}] \leqslant g, h(x) \leqslant h\right\}, \tag{2.8} \end{equation*}(2.8)A(g,h):={x∈A∩Q¯ℓ:[Q(x):Q]⩽g,h(x)⩽h},
where h ( ) h ( â‹… ) h(*)h(\cdot)h(â‹…) denotes the logarithmic Weil height.
Conjecture 13. Let ( S , Ω ) ( S , Ω ) (S,Omega)(\mathcal{S}, \Omega)(S,Ω) be sharply o-minimal. Then there is a polynomial P F ( , , ) P F ( â‹… , â‹… , â‹… ) P_(F)(*,*,*)P_{\mathcal{F}}(\cdot, \cdot, \cdot)PF(â‹…,â‹…,â‹…) depending only on ( S , Ω ) ( S , Ω ) (S,Omega)(\mathcal{S}, \Omega)(S,Ω) and F F F\mathcal{F}F, such that for every A Ω F , D A ∈ Ω F , D A inOmega_(F,D)A \in \Omega_{\mathcal{F}, D}A∈ΩF,D and g , h 2 g , h ⩾ 2 g,h >= 2g, h \geqslant 2g,h⩾2,
(2.9) # A trans ( g , h ) P F ( D , g , h ) (2.9) # A trans  ( g , h ) ⩽ P F ( D , g , h ) {:(2.9)#A^("trans ")(g","h) <= P_(F)(D","g","h):}\begin{equation*} \# A^{\text {trans }}(g, h) \leqslant P_{\mathscr{F}}(D, g, h) \tag{2.9} \end{equation*}(2.9)#Atrans (g,h)⩽PF(D,g,h)
The conjecture sharpens Pila-Wilkie in two ways. First, we replace the subpolynomial term H ε H ε H^(epsi)H^{\varepsilon}Hε by a polynomial in h log H h ∼ log ⁡ H h∼log Hh \sim \log Hh∼log⁡H. Second, we count algebraic points of arbitrary degree, and stipulate polynomial growth with respect to the degree as well.
Conjecture 13 is currently known only for the structure of restricted elementary functions R R E := ( R , + , , < , exp | [ 0 , 1 ] , sin | [ 0 , π ] ) R R E := R , + , â‹… , < , exp [ 0 , 1 ] , sin [ 0 , Ï€ ] R^(RE):=(R,+,*, < , exp|_([0,1]), sin|_([0,pi]))\mathbb{R}^{\mathbb{R E}}:=\left(\mathbb{R},+, \cdot,<,\left.\exp \right|_{[0,1]},\left.\sin \right|_{[0, \pi]}\right)RRE:=(R,+,â‹…,<,exp|[0,1],sin|[0,Ï€]) where it is due to [ 8 ] [ 8 ] [8][8][8] (with a minor technical improvement in [ 5 ] [ 5 ] [5][5][5] ).
Combining the various known techniques in the literature, it is not hard to see that Conjecture 11 implies Conjecture 13 in a general sharply o-minimal structure. In Section 5 we will see that Conjecture 13 has numerous applications in arithmetic geometry, going beyond the standard applications of the Pila-Wilkie theorem. We also discuss some partial results in the direction of Conjecture 13 in Section 4.4.

3. COMPLEX ANALYTIC THEORY

In this section we consider holomorphic analogs of the standard cell decomposition of o-minimality. We fix a sharply o-minimal structure ( S , Ω ) ( S , Ω ) (S,Omega)(S, \Omega)(S,Ω) throughout. We also assume that S S SSS admits cell-decomposition in the sense of Theorem 9 , as we may always reduce to this case.

3.1. Complex cells

We start be defining the notion of a complex cell. This is a complex analog of the cells used in o-minimal geometry.

3.1.1. Basic fibers and their extensions

For r C r ∈ C r inCr \in \mathbb{C}r∈C (resp. r 1 , r 2 C r 1 , r 2 ∈ C r_(1),r_(2)inCr_{1}, r_{2} \in \mathbb{C}r1,r2∈C ) with | r | > 0 | r | > 0 |r| > 0|r|>0|r|>0 (resp. | r 2 | > | r 1 | > 0 r 2 > r 1 > 0 |r_(2)| > |r_(1)| > 0\left|r_{2}\right|>\left|r_{1}\right|>0|r2|>|r1|>0 ), we denote
D ( r ) := { | z | < | r | } , D ( r ) := { 0 < | z | < | r | } , D ( r ) = { | r | < | z | < } , (3.1) A ( r 1 , r 2 ) := { | r 1 | < | z | < | r 2 | } , := { 0 } . D ( r ) := { | z | < | r | } , D ∘ ( r ) := { 0 < | z | < | r | } , D ∞ ( r ) = { | r | < | z | < ∞ } , (3.1) A r 1 , r 2 := r 1 < | z | < r 2 , ∗ := { 0 } . {:[D(r):={|z| < |r|}","quadD_(@)(r):={0 < |z| < |r|}","quadD_(oo)(r)={|r| < |z| < oo}","],[(3.1)A(r_(1),r_(2)):={|r_(1)| < |z| < |r_(2)|}","quad**:={0}.]:}\begin{align*} D(r) & :=\{|z|<|r|\}, \quad D_{\circ}(r):=\{0<|z|<|r|\}, \quad D_{\infty}(r)=\{|r|<|z|<\infty\}, \\ A\left(r_{1}, r_{2}\right) & :=\left\{\left|r_{1}\right|<|z|<\left|r_{2}\right|\right\}, \quad *:=\{0\} . \tag{3.1} \end{align*}D(r):={|z|<|r|},D∘(r):={0<|z|<|r|},D∞(r)={|r|<|z|<∞},(3.1)A(r1,r2):={|r1|<|z|<|r2|},∗:={0}.
For any 0 < δ < 1 0 < δ < 1 0 < delta < 10<\delta<10<δ<1, we define the δ δ delta\deltaδ-extensions by
D δ ( r ) := D ( δ 1 r ) , D δ ( r ) := D ( δ 1 r ) , D δ ( r ) := D ( δ r ) (3.2) A δ ( r 1 , r 2 ) := A ( δ r 1 , δ 1 r 2 ) , δ := D δ ( r ) := D δ − 1 r , D ∘ δ ( r ) := D ∘ δ − 1 r , D ∞ δ ( r ) := D ∞ ( δ r ) (3.2) A δ r 1 , r 2 := A δ r 1 , δ − 1 r 2 , ∗ δ := ∗ {:[D^(delta)(r):=D(delta^(-1)r)","quadD_(@)^(delta)(r):=D_(@)(delta^(-1)r)","quadD_(oo)^(delta)(r):=D_(oo)(delta r)],[(3.2)A^(delta)(r_(1),r_(2)):=A(deltar_(1),delta^(-1)r_(2))","quad**^(delta):=**]:}\begin{align*} D^{\delta}(r) & :=D\left(\delta^{-1} r\right), \quad D_{\circ}^{\delta}(r):=D_{\circ}\left(\delta^{-1} r\right), \quad D_{\infty}^{\delta}(r):=D_{\infty}(\delta r) \\ A^{\delta}\left(r_{1}, r_{2}\right) & :=A\left(\delta r_{1}, \delta^{-1} r_{2}\right), \quad *^{\delta}:=* \tag{3.2} \end{align*}Dδ(r):=D(δ−1r),D∘δ(r):=D∘(δ−1r),D∞δ(r):=D∞(δr)(3.2)Aδ(r1,r2):=A(δr1,δ−1r2),∗δ:=∗
For any 0 < ρ < 0 < ρ < ∞ 0 < rho < oo0<\rho<\infty0<ρ<∞, we define the { ρ } { ρ } {rho}\{\rho\}{ρ}-extension F { ρ } F { ρ } F{rho}\mathcal{F}\{\rho\}F{ρ} of F F F\mathcal{F}F to be F δ F δ F^(delta)\mathcal{F}^{\delta}Fδ where δ δ delta\deltaδ satisfies the equations
ρ = 2 π δ 1 δ 2 for F of type D (3.3) ρ = π 2 2 | log δ | for F of type D , D , A ρ = 2 Ï€ δ 1 − δ 2  for  F  of type  D (3.3) ρ = Ï€ 2 2 | log ⁡ δ |  for  F  of type  D ∘ , D ∞ , A {:[rho=(2pi delta)/(1-delta^(2))quad" for "F" of type "D],[(3.3)rho=(pi^(2))/(2|log delta|)quad" for "F" of type "D_(@)","D_(oo)","A]:}\begin{align*} & \rho=\frac{2 \pi \delta}{1-\delta^{2}} \quad \text { for } \mathcal{F} \text { of type } D \\ & \rho=\frac{\pi^{2}}{2|\log \delta|} \quad \text { for } \mathcal{F} \text { of type } D_{\circ}, D_{\infty}, A \tag{3.3} \end{align*}ρ=2πδ1−δ2 for F of type D(3.3)ρ=Ï€22|log⁡δ| for F of type D∘,D∞,A
The motivation for this notation comes from the following fact, describing the hyperbolic-metric properties of a domain F F F\mathscr{F}F within its { ρ } { ρ } {rho}\{\rho\}{ρ}-extension.
Fact 14. Let F F F\mathcal{F}F be a domain of type A , D , D , D A , D , D ∘ , D ∞ A,D,D_(@),D_(oo)A, D, D_{\circ}, D_{\infty}A,D,D∘,D∞ and let S S SSS be a component of the boundary of F F F\mathcal{F}F in F { ρ } F { ρ } F{rho}\mathcal{F}\{\rho\}F{ρ}. Then the length of S S SSS in F { ρ } F { ρ } F{rho}\mathcal{F}\{\rho\}F{ρ} is at most ρ ρ rho\rhoρ.

3.1.2. The definition of a complex cell

Let X , y X , y X,y\mathcal{X}, yX,y be sets and F : X 2 y F : X → 2 y F:X rarr2^(y)\mathcal{F}: X \rightarrow 2^{y}F:X→2y be a map taking points of X X XXX to subsets of y y yyy. Then we denote
(3.4) X F := { ( x , y ) : x X , y F ( x ) } . (3.4) X ⊙ F := { ( x , y ) : x ∈ X , y ∈ F ( x ) } . {:(3.4)Xo.F:={(x","y):x inX","y inF(x)}.:}\begin{equation*} \mathcal{X} \odot \mathcal{F}:=\{(x, y): x \in \mathcal{X}, y \in \mathcal{F}(x)\} . \tag{3.4} \end{equation*}(3.4)X⊙F:={(x,y):x∈X,y∈F(x)}.
If r : X C { 0 } r : X → C ∖ { 0 } r:XrarrC\\{0}r: \mathcal{X} \rightarrow \mathbb{C} \backslash\{0\}r:X→C∖{0} then for the purpose of this notation we understand D ( r ) D ( r ) D(r)D(r)D(r) as the map assigning to each x X x ∈ X x inXx \in \mathcal{X}x∈X the disc D ( r ( x ) ) D ( r ( x ) ) D(r(x))D(r(x))D(r(x)), and similarly for D , D , A D ∘ , D ∞ , A D_(@),D_(oo),AD_{\circ}, D_{\infty}, AD∘,D∞,A.
We now introduce the notion of a complex cell of length Z 0 ℓ ∈ Z ⩾ 0 ℓinZ_( >= 0)\ell \in \mathbb{Z}_{\geqslant 0}ℓ∈Z⩾0. If U C n U ⊂ C n U subC^(n)U \subset \mathbb{C}^{n}U⊂Cn is a definable domain, we denote by O d ( U ) O d ( U ) O_(d)(U)\mathcal{O}_{d}(U)Od(U) the space of definable holomorphic functions on U U UUU. As a shorthand we denote z 1 . . = ( z 1 , , z ) z 1 . . ℓ = z 1 , … , z ℓ z_(1..ℓ)=(z_(1),dots,z_(ℓ))\mathbf{z}_{1 . . \ell}=\left(\mathbf{z}_{1}, \ldots, \mathbf{z}_{\ell}\right)z1..ℓ=(z1,…,zℓ).
Definition 15 (Complex cells). A complex cell ⨀ ⨀\bigodot⨀ of length zero is the point C 0 C 0 C^(0)\mathbb{C}^{0}C0. A com-

and the fiber F F F\mathscr{F}F is one of , D ( r ) , D ( r ) , D ( r ) , A ( r 1 , r 2 ) ∗ , D ( r ) , D ∘ ( r ) , D ∞ ( r ) , A r 1 , r 2 **,D(r),D_(@)(r),D_(oo)(r),A(r_(1),r_(2))*, D(r), D_{\circ}(r), D_{\infty}(r), A\left(r_{1}, r_{2}\right)∗,D(r),D∘(r),D∞(r),A(r1,r2) where r O d ( C 1 . . ) r ∈ O d C 1 . . ℓ r inO_(d)(C_(1..ℓ))r \in \mathcal{O}_{d}\left(\mathscr{C}_{1 . . \ell}\right)r∈Od(C1..ℓ) satisfies | r ( z 1 . . ) | > 0 r z 1 . . ℓ > 0 |r(z_(1..ℓ))| > 0\left|r\left(\mathbf{z}_{1 . . \ell}\right)\right|>0|r(z1..ℓ)|>0 for z 1 . . C 1 . . ; z 1 . . ℓ ∈ C 1 . . ℓ ; z_(1..ℓ)inC_(1..ℓ);\mathbf{z}_{1 . . \ell} \in \mathcal{C}_{1 . . \ell} ;z1..ℓ∈C1..ℓ; and r 1 , r 2 O d ( C 1 . . ) r 1 , r 2 ∈ O d C 1 . . ℓ r_(1),r_(2)inO_(d)(C_(1..ℓ))r_{1}, r_{2} \in \mathcal{O}_{d}\left(\mathcal{C}_{1 . . \ell}\right)r1,r2∈Od(C1..ℓ) satisfy 0 < | r 1 ( z 1 . . ) | < | r 2 ( z 1 . . ) | 0 < r 1 z 1 . . ℓ < r 2 z 1 . . ℓ 0 < |r_(1)(z_(1..ℓ))| < |r_(2)(z_(1..ℓ))|0<\left|r_{1}\left(\mathbf{z}_{1 . . \ell}\right)\right|<\left|r_{2}\left(\mathbf{z}_{1 . . \ell}\right)\right|0<|r1(z1..ℓ)|<|r2(z1..ℓ)| for z 1 . . C 1 . z 1 . . ℓ ∈ C 1 . ℓ z_(1..ℓ)inC_(1.ℓ)\mathrm{z}_{1 . . \ell} \in \mathcal{C}_{1 . \ell}z1..ℓ∈C1.ℓ.
Next, we define the notion of a δ δ delta\deltaδ-extension (resp. { ρ } { ρ } {rho}\{\rho\}{ρ}-extension).
Definition 16. The cell of length zero is defined to be its own δ δ delta\deltaδ-extension. A cell φ φ varphi\varphiφ of length + 1 â„“ + 1 â„“+1\ell+1â„“+1 admits a δ δ delta\deltaδ-extension δ := 1 . . δ F δ ⨀ δ   := ⨀ 1 . . â„“ δ   ⊙ F δ ⨀delta:=⨀_(1..â„“)^(delta)o.F^(delta)\bigodot^{\delta}:=\bigodot_{1 . . \ell}^{\delta} \odot \mathscr{F}^{\delta}⨀δ:=⨀1..ℓδ⊙Fδ if C 1 . . C 1 . . â„“ C_(1..â„“)\mathcal{C}_{1 . . \ell}C1..â„“ admits a δ δ delta\deltaδ-extension, and if the function r r rrr (resp. r 1 , r 2 r 1 , r 2 r_(1),r_(2)r_{1}, r_{2}r1,r2 ) involved in F F F\mathscr{F}F admits holomorphic continuation to C 1 . . δ C 1 . . â„“ δ C_(1..â„“)^(delta)\mathcal{C}_{1 . . \ell}^{\delta}C1..ℓδ and satisfies | r ( z 1 . . ) | > 0 ( r z 1 . . â„“ > 0 |r(z_(1..â„“))| > 0(:}\left|r\left(\mathbf{z}_{1 . . \ell}\right)\right|>0\left(\right.|r(z1..â„“)|>0( resp. 0 < | r 1 ( z 1 . . ) | < | r 2 ( z 1 . . ) | ) 0 < r 1 z 1 . . â„“ < r 2 z 1 . . â„“ {:0 < |r_(1)(z_(1..â„“))| < |r_(2)(z_(1..â„“))|)\left.0<\left|r_{1}\left(\mathbf{z}_{1 . . \ell}\right)\right|<\left|r_{2}\left(\mathbf{z}_{1 . . \ell}\right)\right|\right)0<|r1(z1..â„“)|<|r2(z1..â„“)|) in this larger domain. The { ρ } { ρ } {rho}\{\rho\}{ρ}-extension { ρ } ⨀ { ρ }   ⨀{rho}\bigodot^{\{\rho\}}⨀{ρ} is defined in an analogous manner.
As a shorthand, when say that δ ⨀ δ   ⨀delta\bigodot^{\delta}⨀δ is a complex cell (resp. C { ρ } C { ρ } C^({rho})\mathcal{C}^{\{\rho\}}C{ρ} ) we mean that C C C\mathscr{C}C is a complex cell admitting a δ δ delta\deltaδ (resp { ρ } { ρ } {rho}\{\rho\}{ρ} ) extension.

3.1.3. The real setting

We introduce the notion of a real complex cell C C C\mathcal{C}C, which we refer to simply as real cells (but note that these are subsets of C C â„“ C^(â„“)\mathbb{C}^{\ell}Câ„“ ). We also define the notion of real part of a real cell C C C\mathcal{C}C (which lies in R R â„“ R^(â„“)\mathbb{R}^{\ell}Râ„“ ), and of a real holomorphic function on a real cell. Below we let R + R + R_(+)\mathbb{R}_{+}R+denote the set of positive real numbers.
Definition 17 (Real complex cells). The cell of length zero is real and equals its real part. A cell C := C 1 . . F C := C 1 . . ℓ ⊙ F C:=C_(1..ℓ)o.F\mathcal{C}:=\mathscr{C}_{1 . . \ell} \odot \mathscr{F}C:=C1..ℓ⊙F is real if C 1 . . C 1 . . ℓ C_(1..ℓ)\mathscr{C}_{1 . . \ell}C1..ℓ is real and the radii involved in F F F\mathscr{F}F can be chosen to be real holomorphic functions on 1 . ⨀ 1 . ℓ   ⨀_(1.ℓ)\bigodot_{1 . \ell}⨀1.ℓ; The real part R C R C RC\mathbb{R} \mathscr{C}RC (resp. positive real part R + R + ⨀ R_(+)⨀\mathbb{R}_{+} \bigodotR+⨀ ) of C C C\mathscr{C}C is defined to be R C 1 . . R F R C 1 . . ℓ ⊙ R F RC_(1..ℓ)o.RF\mathbb{R} \mathscr{C}_{1 . . \ell} \odot \mathbb{R} \mathcal{F}RC1..ℓ⊙RF (resp. R + C 1 . . R + F R + C 1 . . ℓ ⊙ R + F R_(+)C_(1..ℓ)o.R_(+)F\mathbb{R}_{+} \mathscr{C}_{1 . . \ell} \odot \mathbb{R}_{+} \mathscr{F}R+C1..ℓ⊙R+F ) where R F := F R R F := F ∩ R RF:=FnnR\mathbb{R} \mathscr{F}:=\mathscr{F} \cap \mathbb{R}RF:=F∩R (resp. R + F := F R + R + F := F ∩ R + R_(+)F:=FnnR_(+)\mathbb{R}_{+} \mathscr{F}:=\mathscr{F} \cap \mathbb{R}_{+}R+F:=F∩R+) except the case F = F = ∗ F=**\mathscr{F}=*F=∗, where we set R = R + = R ∗ = R + ∗ = ∗ R**=R_(+)**=**\mathbb{R} *=\mathbb{R}_{+} *=*R∗=R+∗=∗; A holomorphic function on C C C\mathscr{C}C is said to be real if it is real on R C R C RC\mathbb{R} \mathcal{C}RC.

3.2. Cellular parametrization

We now state a result that can be viewed as a complex analog of the cell decomposition theorem. We start by introducing the notion of prepared maps.
Definition 18 (Prepared maps). Let , ϵ ^ â„“ , ϵ ^ â„“, hat(epsilon)\mathcal{\ell}, \hat{\epsilon}â„“,ϵ^ be two cells of length â„“ â„“\ellâ„“. We say that a holomorphic map f : C e ^ f : C → e ^ f:Crarr hat(e)f: \mathscr{\mathscr { C }} \rightarrow \hat{\mathscr{e}}f:C→e^ is prepared if it takes the form w j = z j q j + ϕ j ( z 1 . . j 1 ) w j = z j q j + Ï• j z 1 . . j − 1 w_(j)=z_(j)^(q_(j))+phi_(j)(z_(1..j-1))\mathbf{w}_{j}=\mathbf{z}_{j}^{q_{j}}+\phi_{j}\left(\mathbf{z}_{1 . . j-1}\right)wj=zjqj+Ï•j(z1..j−1) where ϕ j O d ( C 1 . . j ) Ï• j ∈ O d C 1 . . j phi_(j)inO_(d)(C_(1..j))\phi_{j} \in \mathcal{O}_{d}\left(\mathscr{C}_{1 . . j}\right)Ï•j∈Od(C1..j) for j = 1 , , j = 1 , … , â„“ j=1,dots,â„“j=1, \ldots, \ellj=1,…,â„“.
Since our cells are always centered at the origin, it is the images of cellular maps that should be viewed as analogous to the cells of o-minimality. The additional exponent q j q j q_(j)q_{j}qj in Definition 18 is needed to handle ramification issues that are not visible in the real context.
Definition 19. For a complex cell C C C\mathscr{C}C and F O d ( C ) F ∈ O d ( C ) F inO_(d)(C)F \in \mathcal{O}_{d}(\mathscr{C})F∈Od(C) we say that F F FFF is compatible with C C C\mathscr{C}C if F F FFF vanishes either identically or nowhere on φ φ varphi\varphiφ. For a cellular map f : ^ f : â„“ ^ → ⨀ f: hat(â„“)rarr⨀f: \hat{\ell} \rightarrow \bigodotf:â„“^→⨀, we say that f f fff is compatible with F F FFF if f F f ∗ F f^(**)Ff^{*} Ff∗F is compatible with e ^ e ^ hat(e)\hat{e}e^.
We will be interested in covering (real) cells by prepared images of (real) cells.
Definition 20. Let { ρ } ⨀ { ρ }   ⨀{rho}\bigodot^{\{\rho\}}⨀{ρ} be a cell and { f j : j { σ } { ρ } } f j : ⨀ j { σ }   → ⨀ { ρ }   {f_(j):⨀_(j)^({sigma})rarr⨀{rho}}\left\{f_{j}: \bigodot_{j}^{\{\sigma\}} \rightarrow \bigodot^{\{\rho\}}\right\}{fj:⨀j{σ}→⨀{ρ}} be a finite collection of cellular maps. We say that this collection is a cellular cover of C C C\mathscr{C}C if C j ( f j ( C j ) ) C ⊂ ⋃ j   f j C j Csubuuu_(j)(f_(j)(C_(j)))\mathscr{C} \subset \bigcup_{j}\left(f_{j}\left(\mathscr{C}_{j}\right)\right)C⊂⋃j(fj(Cj)). Similarly, we say it is a real cellular cover if R + φ j ( f j ( R + j ) ) R + φ ⊂ ⋃ j   f j R + ⨀ j   R_(+)varphi subuuu_(j)(f_(j)(R_(+)⨀_(j)))\mathbb{R}_{+} \varphi \subset \bigcup_{j}\left(f_{j}\left(\mathbb{R}_{+} \bigodot_{j}\right)\right)R+φ⊂⋃j(fj(R+⨀j)).
Finally, we can state our main conjecture on complex cellular parametrizations.
Conjecture 21 (Cellular Parametrization Theorem, CPT). Let ρ , σ ( 0 , ) ρ , σ ∈ ( 0 , ∞ ) rho,sigma in(0,oo)\rho, \sigma \in(0, \infty)ρ,σ∈(0,∞). Let { ρ } ⨀ { ρ }   ⨀{rho}\bigodot^{\{\rho\}}⨀{ρ} be a (real) cell and F 1 , , F M O d ( { ρ } ) F 1 , … , F M ∈ O d ⨀ { ρ }   F_(1),dots,F_(M)inO_(d)(⨀{rho})F_{1}, \ldots, F_{M} \in \mathcal{O}_{d}\left(\bigodot^{\{\rho\}}\right)F1,…,FM∈Od(⨀{ρ}) (real) holomorphic functions, with { ρ } ⨀ { ρ }   ⨀{rho}\bigodot^{\{\rho\}}⨀{ρ} and each F j F j F_(j)F_{j}Fj having format F F F\mathcal{F}F and degree D D DDD. Then there exists a (real) cellular cover

of cells is poly F ( D , M , ρ , 1 / σ ) poly F ⁡ ( D , M , ρ , 1 / σ ) poly_(F)(D,M,rho,1//sigma)\operatorname{poly}_{\mathcal{F}}(D, M, \rho, 1 / \sigma)polyF⁡(D,M,ρ,1/σ), and each of them has format const ( F ) const ⁡ ( F ) const(F)\operatorname{const}(\mathscr{F})const⁡(F) and degree poly F ( D ) poly F ⁡ ( D ) poly_(F)(D)\operatorname{poly}_{\mathcal{F}}(D)polyF⁡(D).
The main result of [9] is that Conjecture 21 holds in the structure R alg R alg  R_("alg ")\mathbb{R}_{\text {alg }}Ralg  (we assume there for technical convenience that the functions are bounded rather than just definable, but this does not seem to be a serious obstacle). We remark that there are significant difficulties with extending this proof to the general sharply o-minimal case.

3.3. Analytically generated structures

We say that a sharply o-minimal structure ( S , Ω ) ( S , Ω ) (S,Omega)(S, \Omega)(S,Ω) is analytically generated if there is a collection of complex cells { C α } C α {C_(alpha)}\left\{\mathcal{C}_{\alpha}\right\}{Cα} admitting a 1/2-extension, and associated formats and
degrees ( F α , D α ) F α , D α (F_(alpha),D_(alpha))\left(\mathscr{F}_{\alpha}, D_{\alpha}\right)(Fα,Dα) such that S S SSS is generated by { C α } C α {C_(alpha)}\left\{\mathscr{C}_{\alpha}\right\}{Cα} and Ω Î© Omega\OmegaΩ is generated by { ( C α , F α , D α ) } C α , F α , D α {(C_(alpha),F_(alpha),D_(alpha))}\left\{\left(\mathscr{C}_{\alpha}, \mathcal{F}_{\alpha}, D_{\alpha}\right)\right\}{(Cα,Fα,Dα)}. We fix such a structure S S SSS below. Assuming the CPT, one can prove the following analog of Theorem 9 giving a cell decomposition by real parts of complex analytic cells.
Theorem 22. Let ( S , Ω ) ( S , Ω ) (S,Omega)(S, \Omega)(S,Ω) be sharply o-minimal and assume that it satisfies the CPT. Then there exists another F D F D FDF DFD-filtration Ω Î© ′ Omega^(')\Omega^{\prime}Ω′ with ( S , Ω ) S , Ω ′ (S,Omega^('))\left(\mathcal{S}, \Omega^{\prime}\right)(S,Ω′) sharply o-minimal such that Ω Ω Î© ⩽ Ω ′ Omega <= Omega^(')\Omega \leqslant \Omega^{\prime}Ω⩽Ω′, and in Ω Î© ′ Omega^(')\Omega^{\prime}Ω′ the following holds.
Let X 1 , , X k Ω F , D X 1 , … , X k ∈ Ω F , D ′ X_(1),dots,X_(k)inOmega_(F,D)^(')X_{1}, \ldots, X_{k} \in \Omega_{\mathcal{F}, D}^{\prime}X1,…,Xk∈ΩF,D′, all subsets of R R â„“ R^(â„“)\mathbb{R}^{\ell}Râ„“. Then there exists a real cellular cover

each X i X i X_(i)X_{i}Xi. The number of cells is poly F ( D , k , 1 / σ ) poly F ⁡ ( D , k , 1 / σ ) poly_(F)(D,k,1//sigma)\operatorname{poly}_{\mathcal{F}}(D, k, 1 / \sigma)polyF⁡(D,k,1/σ), and each of them has format const ( F ) const ⁡ ( F ) const(F)\operatorname{const}(\mathcal{F})const⁡(F) and degree poly F ( D ) poly F ⁡ ( D ) poly_(F)(D)\operatorname{poly}_{\mathcal{F}}(D)polyF⁡(D).
In particular, the cells f j ( R + j ) R f j R + ⨀ j   ⊂ R â„“ f_(j)(R_(+)⨀_(j))subR^(â„“)f_{j}\left(\mathbb{R}_{+} \bigodot_{j}\right) \subset \mathbb{R}^{\ell}fj(R+⨀j)⊂Râ„“ form a cell-decomposition of R R â„“ R^(â„“)\mathbb{R}^{\ell}Râ„“ compatible with X 1 , , X k X 1 , … , X k X_(1),dots,X_(k)X_{1}, \ldots, X_{k}X1,…,Xk. In addition, each cell admits "analytic continuation" to a complex cell C j C j C_(j)\mathscr{C}_{j}Cj with a { σ } { σ } {sigma}\{\sigma\}{σ}-extension.
In [9] it is shown that from a parametrization of the type provided by Theorem 22 one can produce C r C r C^(r)C^{r}Cr-smooth parametrizations, with the number of maps depending polynomially on both D D DDD and r r rrr. In particular, the conclusion of Theorem 22 implies Conjectures 11 and 13 . It therefore seems that proving the CPT in a general analytically-generated sharply o-minimal structure provides a plausible approach to these two conjectures.
We remark that a different complex analytic approach, based on the notion of Weierstrass polydiscs, was employed in [8] to prove the Wilkie conjecture in the structure R R E R R E R^(RE)\mathbb{R}^{\mathrm{RE}}RRE. This may also give an approach to proving Conjecture 13 in general, but it does not seem to be applicable to Conjecture 11.

3.4. Complex cells, hyperbolic geometry, and preparation theorems

The main motivation for introduction the notion of { ρ } { ρ } {rho}\{\rho\}{ρ}-extensions of complex cells is that one can use the hyperbolic geometry of C C C\mathscr{C}C inside { ρ } ⨀ { ρ }   ⨀{rho}\bigodot^{\{\rho\}}⨀{ρ} to control the geometry of holomorphic functions defined on complex cells. This is used extensively in the proof of the algebraic CPT in [9], but also gives statements of independent interest. We illustrate two of the main statements.
For any hyperbolic Riemann surface X X XXX, we denote by dist ( , ; X ) dist ⁡ ( ⋅ , ⋅ ; X ) dist(*,*;X)\operatorname{dist}(\cdot, \cdot ; X)dist⁡(⋅,⋅;X) the hyperbolic distance on X X XXX. We use the same notation when X = C X = C X=CX=\mathbb{C}X=C and X = R X = R X=RX=\mathbb{R}X=R to denote the usual Euclidean distance, and when X = C P 1 X = C P 1 X=CP^(1)X=\mathbb{C} P^{1}X=CP1 to denote the Fubini-Study metric normalized to have diameter 1. For x X x ∈ X x in Xx \in Xx∈X and r > 0 r > 0 r > 0r>0r>0, we denote by B ( x , r ; X ) B ( x , r ; X ) B(x,r;X)B(x, r ; X)B(x,r;X) the open r r rrr-ball centered at x x xxx in X X XXX. For A X A ⊂ X A sub XA \subset XA⊂X, we denote by B ( A , r ; X ) B ( A , r ; X ) B(A,r;X)B(A, r ; X)B(A,r;X) the union of r r rrr-balls centered at all points of A A AAA.
Lemma 23 (Fundamental lemma for C { 0 , 1 } C ∖ { 0 , 1 } C\\{0,1}\mathbb{C} \backslash\{0,1\}C∖{0,1} ). Let { ρ } ⨀ { ρ }   ⨀{rho}\bigodot^{\{\rho\}}⨀{ρ} be a complex cell and let f : e { ρ } C { 0 , 1 } f : e { ρ } → C ∖ { 0 , 1 } f:e^({rho})rarrC\\{0,1}f: \mathcal{e}^{\{\rho\}} \rightarrow \mathbb{C} \backslash\{0,1\}f:e{ρ}→C∖{0,1} be holomorphic. Then one of the following holds:
The fundamental lemma for C { 0 , 1 } C ∖ { 0 , 1 } C\\{0,1}\mathbb{C} \backslash\{0,1\}C∖{0,1} implies the Great Picard Theorem: indeed,

f : D C { 0 , 1 } f : D ∘ → C ∖ { 0 , 1 } f:D_(@)rarrC\\{0,1}f: D_{\circ} \rightarrow \mathbb{C} \backslash\{0,1\}f:D∘→C∖{0,1} has an image of small diameter in C P 1 C P 1 CP^(1)\mathbb{C} P^{1}CP1, hence is bounded away from some w C P 1 w ∈ C P 1 w inCP^(1)w \in \mathbb{C} P^{1}w∈CP1, and it follows elementarily that f f fff is meromorphic at the origin.
If f : { ρ } C { 0 } f : ⨀ { ρ }   → C ∖ { 0 } f:⨀{rho}rarrC\\{0}f: \bigodot^{\{\rho\}} \rightarrow \mathbb{C} \backslash\{0\}f:⨀{ρ}→C∖{0} is a bounded holomorphic map then we may decompose it as f = z α ( f ) U ( z ) f = z α ( f ) â‹… U ( z ) f=z^(alpha(f))*U(z)f=\mathbf{z}^{\alpha(f)} \cdot U(\mathbf{z})f=zα(f)â‹…U(z), where U : { ρ } C { 0 } U : ⨀ { ρ }   → C ∖ { 0 } U:⨀{rho}rarrC\\{0}U: \bigodot^{\{\rho\}} \rightarrow \mathbb{C} \backslash\{0\}U:⨀{ρ}→C∖{0} is a holomorphic map and the branches of log U : e { ρ } C log ⁡ U : e { ρ } → C log U:e^({rho})rarrC\log U: \mathscr{e}^{\{\rho\}} \rightarrow \mathbb{C}log⁡U:e{ρ}→C are univalued. The following lemma shows that U U UUU enjoys strong boundedness properties when restricted to C C C\mathscr{C}C.
Lemma 24 (Monomialization lemma). Let 0 < ρ < 0 < ρ < ∞ 0 < rho < oo0<\rho<\infty0<ρ<∞ and let f : C { ρ } C { 0 } f : C { ρ } → C ∖ { 0 } f:C^({rho})rarrC\\{0}f: \mathcal{C}^{\{\rho\}} \rightarrow \mathbb{C} \backslash\{0\}f:C{ρ}→C∖{0} be a holomorphic map. If C { ρ } , f Ω F , D C { ρ } , f ∈ Ω F , D C^({rho}),f inOmega_(F,D)\mathcal{C}^{\{\rho\}}, f \in \Omega_{\mathcal{F}, D}C{ρ},f∈ΩF,D then there exists a polynomial P F ( ) P F ( â‹… ) P_(F)(*)P_{\mathcal{F}}(\cdot)PF(â‹…) such that | α ( f ) | P F ( D ) | α ( f ) | ⩽ P F ( D ) |alpha(f)| <= P_(F)(D)|\boldsymbol{\alpha}(f)| \leqslant P_{\mathscr{F}}(D)|α(f)|⩽PF(D) and
(3.6) diam ( log U ( ) ; C ) < P F ( D ) ρ , diam ( Im log U ( ) ; R ) < P F ( D ) (3.6) diam ⁡ ( log ⁡ U ( ⨀ ) ; C ) < P F ( D ) â‹… ρ , diam ⁡ ( Im ⁡ log ⁡ U ( ⨀ ) ; R ) < P F ( D ) {:(3.6)diam(log U(⨀);C) < P_(F)(D)*rho","quad diam(Im log U(⨀);R) < P_(F)(D):}\begin{equation*} \operatorname{diam}(\log U(\bigodot) ; \mathbb{C})<P_{\mathcal{F}}(D) \cdot \rho, \quad \operatorname{diam}(\operatorname{Im} \log U(\bigodot) ; \mathbb{R})<P_{\mathcal{F}}(D) \tag{3.6} \end{equation*}(3.6)diam⁡(log⁡U(⨀);C)<PF(D)⋅ρ,diam⁡(Im⁡log⁡U(⨀);R)<PF(D)
The monomialization lemma is proved in this form for the structure R alg R alg  R_("alg ")\mathbb{R}_{\text {alg }}Ralg  in [9], but the proof extends to the general sharply o-minimal case. It is also shown in [9] that the monomialization lemma in combination with the CPT gives an effective version of the subanalytic preparation theorem of Parusinski [33] and Lion-Rolin [26], which is a key technical tool in the theory of the structure R a n R a n R_(an)\mathbb{R}_{\mathrm{an}}Ran.

3.5. Unrestricted exponentials

One of the milestones in the development of o-minimality is Wilkie's theorem on the model-completeness of R exp R exp R_(exp)\mathbb{R}_{\exp }Rexp [43], which, together with Khovanskii's theory of fewnomials, established the o-minimality of R exp R exp  R_("exp ")\mathbb{R}_{\text {exp }}Rexp . Wilkie's methods were later used by van den Dries and Miller to establish the o-minimality of R an,exp R an,exp  R_("an,exp ")\mathbb{R}_{\text {an,exp }}Ran,exp . This latter structure plays a key role in many of the applications of o-minimality to arithmetic geometry, since it contains the uniformizing maps of (mixed) Shimura varieties restricted to an appropriate fundamental domain. We conjecture a sharply o-minimal version of the theorems of Wilkie and van den Dries, Miller as follows.
Conjecture 25. Let ( S , Ω ) ( S , Ω ) (S,Omega)(S, \Omega)(S,Ω) be an analytically generated sharply o-minimal structure. Let S exp S exp S_(exp)\mathcal{S}_{\exp }Sexp denote the structure generated by S S SSS and the unrestricted exponential, and let Ω exp Ω exp Omega_(exp)\Omega_{\exp }Ωexp be the FD-filtration of S exp S exp S_(exp)S_{\exp }Sexp generated by Ω Î© Omega\OmegaΩ and by the graph of the unrestricted exponential (say with format and degree 1). Then ( S e x p , Ω e x p S e x p , Ω e x p S_(exp),Omega_(exp)S_{\mathrm{exp}}, \Omega_{\mathrm{exp}}Sexp,Ωexp ) is sharply o-minimal.
It is perhaps plausible to make the same conjecture even without the assumption of analytic generation. However, the analytic case appears to be sufficient for all (currently known) applications, and the availability of the tools discussed in this section make the conjecture seem somewhat more amenable in this case. In particular, Lion-Rolin [26] have a geometric approach to the o-minimality of R a n , e x p R a n , e x p R_(an,exp)\mathbb{R}_{\mathrm{an}, \mathrm{exp}}Ran,exp using the subanalytic preparation theorem as a basic tool. The CPT provides a sharp version of the subanalytic preparation theorem, thus suggesting a possible path to the proof of Conjecture 25.

4. SHARPLY O-MINIMAL STRUCTURES ARISING FROM GEOMETRY

The fundamental motivation for introducing the notion of sharply o-minimal structures is the expectation that structures arising naturally from geometry should indeed be tame in this stronger sense. We start by motivating the discussion with the example of Abel-Jacobi maps, and then state some general conjectures.

4.1. Abel-Jacobi maps

Recall that for C C CCC a compact Riemann surface of genus g g ggg and ω 1 , , ω g ω 1 , … , ω g omega_(1),dots,omega_(g)\omega_{1}, \ldots, \omega_{g}ω1,…,ωg a basis of holomorphic one-forms on C C CCC, there is an associated lattice of periods Λ C g Λ ⊂ C g Lambda subC^(g)\Lambda \subset \mathbb{C}^{g}Λ⊂Cg, a principally polarized abelian variety Jac ( C ) C g / Λ Jac ⁡ ( C ) ≃ C g / Λ Jac(C)≃C^(g)//Lambda\operatorname{Jac}(C) \simeq \mathbb{C}^{g} / \LambdaJac⁡(C)≃Cg/Λ and, for any choice of base point p 0 C p 0 ∈ C p_(0)in Cp_{0} \in Cp0∈C, an Abel-Jacobi map
(4.1) u C : C Jac ( C ) , u C ( p ) = p 0 p ( ω 1 , , ω g ) mod Λ (4.1) u C : C → Jac ⁡ ( C ) , u C ( p ) = ∫ p 0 p   ω 1 , … , ω g mod Λ {:(4.1)u_(C):C rarr Jac(C)","quadu_(C)(p)=int_(p_(0))^(p)(omega_(1),dots,omega_(g))mod Lambda:}\begin{equation*} u_{C}: C \rightarrow \operatorname{Jac}(C), \quad u_{C}(p)=\int_{p_{0}}^{p}\left(\omega_{1}, \ldots, \omega_{g}\right) \bmod \Lambda \tag{4.1} \end{equation*}(4.1)uC:C→Jac⁡(C),uC(p)=∫p0p(ω1,…,ωg)modΛ
To discuss definability properties of u C u C u_(C)u_{C}uC, we choose a semi-algebraic (or even semi-linear) fundamental domain Δ C g Δ ⊂ C g Delta subC^(g)\Delta \subset \mathbb{C}^{g}Δ⊂Cg for the Λ Î› Lambda\LambdaΛ-action and consider u C u C u_(C)u_{C}uC as a map u C : C Δ u C : C → Δ u_(C):C rarr Deltau_{C}: C \rightarrow \DeltauC:C→Δ.
Proposition 26. There is an analytically generated sharply o-minimal structure where every u C u C u_(C)u_{C}uC is definable.
Indeed, after covering C C CCC by finitely many charts ϕ j : D C Ï• j : D → C phi_(j):D rarr C\phi_{j}: D \rightarrow CÏ•j:D→C, where ϕ j Ï• j phi_(j)\phi_{j}Ï•j are algebraic maps extending to some neighborhood of D ¯ D ¯ bar(D)\bar{D}D¯, it is enough to show that the structure generated by these ϕ j u C Ï• j ∗ u C phi_(j)^(**)u_(C)\phi_{j}^{*} u_{C}Ï•j∗uC is sharply o-minimal. Moreover, it is enough to show instead that the lifts
(4.2) u ~ C , j : D C g , u ~ C , j ( z ) = 0 z ϕ ( ω 1 , , ω g ) (4.2) u ~ C , j : D → C g , u ~ C , j ( z ) = ∫ 0 z   Ï• ∗ ω 1 , … , ω g {:(4.2) tilde(u)_(C,j):D rarrC^(g)","quad tilde(u)_(C,j)(z)=int_(0)^(z)phi^(**)(omega_(1),dots,omega_(g)):}\begin{equation*} \tilde{u}_{C, j}: D \rightarrow \mathbb{C}^{g}, \quad \tilde{u}_{C, j}(z)=\int_{0}^{z} \phi^{*}\left(\omega_{1}, \ldots, \omega_{g}\right) \tag{4.2} \end{equation*}(4.2)u~C,j:D→Cg,u~C,j(z)=∫0zϕ∗(ω1,…,ωg)
are definable. Indeed, u ~ C , j ( D ¯ ) u ~ C , j ( D ¯ ) tilde(u)_(C,j)( bar(D))\tilde{u}_{C, j}(\bar{D})u~C,j(D¯) being compact meets finitely many translates of Δ Î” Delta\DeltaΔ, and the further projection C g Δ C g → Δ C^(g)rarr Delta\mathbb{C}^{g} \rightarrow \DeltaCg→Δ restricted to some ball containing u ~ C , j ( D ) u ~ C , j ( D ) tilde(u)_(C,j)(D)\tilde{u}_{C, j}(D)u~C,j(D) is thus definable in any sharply o-minimal structures (even in R alg R alg  R_("alg ")\mathbb{R}_{\text {alg }}Ralg  ). The sharp o-minimality of the structure generated by all these u ~ C , j u ~ C , j tilde(u)_(C,j)\tilde{u}_{C, j}u~C,j follows from Theorem 6 , since these functions, as indefinite integrals of algebraic one-forms, are restricted-Pfaffian (see, e.g., [27] for the elliptic case).
The construction above, however, is not uniform over C C CCC of a given genus. More precisely, while we do have u ~ j , C Ω F , D u ~ j , C ∈ Ω F , D tilde(u)_(j,C)inOmega_(F,D)\tilde{u}_{j, C} \in \Omega_{\mathcal{F}, D}u~j,C∈ΩF,D for some uniform F , D F , D F,D\mathcal{F}, DF,D, the number of algebraic charts ϕ j : D C Ï• j : D → C phi_(j):D rarr C\phi_{j}: D \rightarrow CÏ•j:D→C may tend to infinity as C C CCC approaches the boundary of the moduli space M g M g M_(g)\mathcal{M}_{g}Mg of compact genus g g ggg curves. However, we do have the following.
Proposition 27. There is a sharply o-minimal structure where every u C Ω F , D u C ∈ Ω F , D u_(C)inOmega_(F,D)u_{C} \in \Omega_{\mathcal{F}, D}uC∈ΩF,D for some uniform F = F ( g ) F = F ( g ) F=F(g)\mathscr{F}=\mathscr{F}(g)F=F(g) and D = D ( g ) D = D ( g ) D=D(g)D=D(g)D=D(g).
To prove this, we replace the covering ϕ j : D C Ï• j : D → C phi_(j):D rarr C\phi_{j}: D \rightarrow CÏ•j:D→C by a covering ϕ j : e j 1 / 2 C Ï• j : e j 1 / 2 → C phi_(j):e_(j)^(1//2)rarr C\phi_{j}: \mathcal{e}_{j}^{1 / 2} \rightarrow CÏ•j:ej1/2→C, where each C j C j C_(j)\mathscr{C}_{j}Cj is a one-dimensional complex cell and ϕ j ( C j ) Ï• j C j phi_(j)(C_(j))\phi_{j}\left(\mathscr{C}_{j}\right)Ï•j(Cj) covers C C CCC. By the removable

and their degrees are poly F ( g ) F ( g ) F(g)\mathscr{F}(g)F(g) by the algebraic CPT. Here we use the fact that a genus g g ggg curve can always be realized as an algebraic curve of degree d = poly ( g ) d = poly ⁡ ( g ) d=poly(g)d=\operatorname{poly}(g)d=poly⁡(g). The same
construction as above now shows that each u ~ C , j : C C g u ~ C , j : C → C g tilde(u)_(C,j):CrarrC^(g)\tilde{u}_{C, j}: \mathcal{C} \rightarrow \mathbb{C}^{g}u~C,j:C→Cg, if univalued, is restricted Pfaffian of format F = F ( g ) F = F ( g ) F=F(g)\mathcal{F}=\mathcal{F}(g)F=F(g) and degree D = poly g ( D ) D = poly g ⁡ ( D ) D=poly_(g)(D)D=\operatorname{poly}_{g}(D)D=polyg⁡(D). In general, we have
(4.3) u ~ C , j ( z ) = u C , j ( z ) + ( a C , j , 1 , , a C , j , g ) log z (4.3) u ~ C , j ( z ) = u C , j ′ ( z ) + a C , j , 1 , … , a C , j , g log ⁡ z {:(4.3) tilde(u)_(C,j)(z)=u_(C,j)^(')(z)+(a_(C,j,1),dots,a_(C,j,g))log z:}\begin{equation*} \tilde{u}_{C, j}(z)=u_{C, j}^{\prime}(z)+\left(a_{C, j, 1}, \ldots, a_{C, j, g}\right) \log z \tag{4.3} \end{equation*}(4.3)u~C,j(z)=uC,j′(z)+(aC,j,1,…,aC,j,g)log⁡z
where u C , j u C , j ′ u_(C,j)^(')u_{C, j}^{\prime}uC,j′ is univalued and a C , j , k a C , j , k a_(C,j,k)a_{C, j, k}aC,j,k is the residue of ϕ j ω k Ï• j ∗ ω k phi_(j)^(**)omega_(k)\phi_{j}^{*} \omega_{k}Ï•j∗ωk around the annulus. Since log z log ⁡ z log z\log zlog⁡z, understood for instance as having a branch cut in the negative real line, is restricted Pfaffian with uniform format and degree over every annulus, this proves the general case.
Finally, one should check that the projection C g Δ C g → Δ C^(g)rarr Delta\mathbb{C}^{g} \rightarrow \DeltaCg→Δ, restricted to ϕ ~ j ( C j ) Ï• ~ j C j tilde(phi)_(j)(C_(j))\tilde{\phi}_{j}\left(\mathscr{C}_{j}\right)Ï•~j(Cj) is definable (say in R alg R alg  R_("alg ")\mathbb{R}_{\text {alg }}Ralg  ) with format and degree depending only on g g ggg. Equivalently, one should check that ϕ ~ j ( C j ) Ï• ~ j C j tilde(phi)_(j)(C_(j))\tilde{\phi}_{j}\left(\mathscr{C}_{j}\right)Ï•~j(Cj) meets finitely many translates of Δ Î” Delta\DeltaΔ, with the number of translates depending only on g g ggg (if ϕ ~ j ( C j ) Ï• ~ j C j tilde(phi)_(j)(C_(j))\tilde{\phi}_{j}\left(\mathscr{C}_{j}\right)Ï•~j(Cj) is multivalued then one should take one of its branches). This indeed holds, provided that the fundamental domains Δ Î” Delta\DeltaΔ are chosen appropriately. It can be deduced, albeit ineffectively, from the definability of theta functions (in both τ Ï„ tau\tauÏ„ and z z zzz ) on an appropriate fundamental domain [34]. In the case g = 1 g = 1 g=1g=1g=1, an explicit upper bound for these constants is given in [24].
The appearance of logarithmic factors in (4.3) is the reason that the structure we obtain is not analytically generated. However, the construction does prove the following.
Proposition 28. There is an analytically generated sharply o-minimal structure ( S , Ω ) ( S , Ω ) (S,Omega)(S, \Omega)(S,Ω) where every u C ( Ω e x p ) F , D u C ∈ Ω e x p F , D u_(C)in(Omega_(exp))_(F,D)u_{C} \in\left(\Omega_{\mathrm{exp}}\right)_{\mathcal{F}, D}uC∈(Ωexp)F,D for some uniform F = F ( g ) F = F ( g ) F=F(g)\mathcal{F}=\mathscr{F}(g)F=F(g) and D = D ( g ) D = D ( g ) D=D(g)D=D(g)D=D(g).
According to Conjecture 25 the structure S exp S exp  S_("exp ")S_{\text {exp }}Sexp  is indeed sharply o-minimal as well, but this remains open.

4.2. Uniformizing maps of abelian varieties

One can essentially repeat the construction above replacing Jac ( C ) Jac ⁡ ( C ) Jac(C)\operatorname{Jac}(C)Jac⁡(C) by an arbitrary (say principally polarized) abelian variety A A AAA of genus g g ggg. We similarly have a map u : A Δ u : A → Δ u:A rarr Deltau: A \rightarrow \Deltau:A→Δ where Δ C g Δ ⊂ C g Delta subC^(g)\Delta \subset \mathbb{C}^{g}Δ⊂Cg is a semilinear fundamental domain for the period lattice of A A AAA, corresponding to some fixed basis of the holomorphic ones-forms ω 1 , , ω g ω 1 , … , ω g omega_(1),dots,omega_(g)\omega_{1}, \ldots, \omega_{g}ω1,…,ωg on A A AAA. Propositions 26,27 , and 28 extend to this more general context with essentially the same proof.

4.3. Noetherian functions

We have seen in Sections 4.1 and 4.2 that Abel-Jacobi maps and uniformizing maps of abelian varieties live in a sharply o-minimal structure (in fact, uniformly over all curves or abelian varieties of a given genus). This eventually boils down to the fact that the relevant maps are definable in R r P f a f f R r P f a f f R_(rPfaff)\mathbb{R}_{\mathrm{rPfaff}}RrPfaff. However, we do not believe that all functions arising from geometry are definable in this structure. For instance, we conjecture that the graph of the modular invariant j ( τ ) j ( Ï„ ) j(tau)j(\tau)j(Ï„) restricted to any nonempty domain is not definable in R r P f a f f R r P f a f f R_(rPfaff)\mathbb{R}_{\mathrm{rPfaff}}RrPfaff. We do not know how to prove this fact, but Freitag [17] has recently at least shown that j ( τ ) j ( Ï„ ) j(tau)j(\tau)j(Ï„) it not itself Pfaffian, on any nonempty domain, as a consequence of the strong minimality of the differential equation satisfied by j ( τ ) [ 18 ] j ( Ï„ ) [ 18 ] j(tau)[18]j(\tau)[18]j(Ï„)[18].
One natural extension of the notion of Pfaffian functions are the Noetherian functions. Let B R B ⊂ R â„“ B subR^(â„“)B \subset \mathbb{R}^{\ell}B⊂Râ„“ be a product of finite intervals. A tuple f 1 , , f m : B ¯ R f 1 , … , f m : B ¯ → R f_(1),dots,f_(m): bar(B)rarrRf_{1}, \ldots, f_{m}: \bar{B} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}f1,…,fm:B¯→R of analytic
functions is called a restricted Noetherian chain if they satisfy a system of algebraic differential equations of the form
(4.4) f i x j = P ( x 1 , , x , f 1 , , f m ) , i , j (4.4) ∂ f i ∂ x j = P x 1 , … , x ℓ , f 1 , … , f m , ∀ i , j {:(4.4)(delf_(i))/(delx_(j))=P(x_(1),dots,x_(ℓ),f_(1),dots,f_(m))","quad AA i","j:}\begin{equation*} \frac{\partial f_{i}}{\partial x_{j}}=P\left(x_{1}, \ldots, x_{\ell}, f_{1}, \ldots, f_{m}\right), \quad \forall i, j \tag{4.4} \end{equation*}(4.4)∂fi∂xj=P(x1,…,xℓ,f1,…,fm),∀i,j
We denote the structure generated by the restricted Noetherian functions by R r Noether R r  Noether  R_(r" Noether ")\mathbb{R}_{r \text { Noether }}Rr Noether . Since all restricted Noetherian functions are restricted analytic, R r N o e t h e r R r N o e t h e r R_(rNoether)\mathbb{R}_{\mathrm{rNoether}}RrNoether is o-minimal.
Conjecture 29. The structure R r N o e t h e r R r N o e t h e r R_(rNoether)\mathbb{R}_{\mathrm{r} N o e t h e r ~}RrNoether  is sharply o-minimal with respect to some FD. filtration.
Gabrielov and Khovanskii have considered some local analogs of the theory of fewnomials for nondegenerate systems of Noetherian equations in [20], and made some (still local) conjectures about the general case. These conjectures are proved in [7] under a technical condition. However, these results are all local, bounding the number of zeros in some sufficiently small ball.
Despite the general Conjecture 29 being open, an effective Pila-Wilkie counting theorem was obtained in [4] for semi-Noetherian sets.
Theorem 30. Let A be defined by finitely many restricted Noetherian equalities and inequalities. Then for every ε > 0 ε > 0 epsi > 0\varepsilon>0ε>0, we have
(4.5) # A trans ( g , H ) C g , A H ε (4.5) # A trans  ( g , H ) ⩽ C g , A H ε {:(4.5)#A^("trans ")(g","H) <= C_(g,A)H^(epsi):}\begin{equation*} \# A^{\text {trans }}(g, H) \leqslant C_{g, A} H^{\varepsilon} \tag{4.5} \end{equation*}(4.5)#Atrans (g,H)⩽Cg,AHε
where C g , A C g , A C_(g,A)C_{g, A}Cg,A can be computed explicitly from the data defining A A AAA.
Of course, provided Conjecture 29 an effective Pila-Wilkie theorem with better bounds (for instance, polynomial in the degree of A A AAA ) would follow from Theorem 12. More generally, as a consequence of Conjecture 13 we would expect sharper polylogarithmic bounds as well. Some results in this direction are discussed in the following section.

4.4. Bezout-type theorems and point counting with foliations

One can think of the graphs of Noetherian functions equivalently as leafs of algebraic foliations. Partial results in the direction of Conjecture 29 have been obtained in [5] in this language. To state the result we consider an ambient quasi-projective variety M M M\mathbb{M}M and a nonsingular m m mmm-dimensional foliation F F F\mathscr{F}F of M M M\mathbb{M}M, both defined over Q ¯ Q ¯ bar(Q)\overline{\mathbb{Q}}Q¯. For p M p ∈ M p inMp \in \mathbb{M}p∈M denote by L p L p L_(p)\mathscr{L}_{p}Lp the germ of the leaf passing through p p ppp. For a pure-dimensional variety V M V ⊂ M V subMV \subset \mathbb{M}V⊂M, denote
(4.6) Σ V := { p M : dim ( V L p ) > m codim M V } (4.6) Σ V := p ∈ M : dim ⁡ V ∩ L p > m − codim M ⁡ V {:(4.6)Sigma_(V):={p inM:dim(V nnL_(p)) > m-codim_(M)V}:}\begin{equation*} \Sigma_{V}:=\left\{p \in \mathbb{M}: \operatorname{dim}\left(V \cap \mathscr{L}_{p}\right)>m-\operatorname{codim}_{\mathbb{M}} V\right\} \tag{4.6} \end{equation*}(4.6)ΣV:={p∈M:dim⁡(V∩Lp)>m−codimM⁡V}
If V V VVV is defined over Q ¯ Q ¯ bar(Q)\overline{\mathbb{Q}}Q¯, we denote by δ V δ V delta_(V)\delta_{V}δV the sum of the degree deg V deg ⁡ V deg V\operatorname{deg} Vdeg⁡V, the log-height h ( V ) h ( V ) h(V)h(V)h(V), and the degree of the field of definition of V V VVV over Q Q Q\mathbb{Q}Q. Here the log-height is taken, for instance, to be the log-height of the point representing V V VVV in an appropriate Chow variety. In terms of this data we have the following Bezout-type theorem.
Theorem 31 ([5, THEOREM 1]). Let V M V ⊂ M V subMV \subset \mathbb{M}V⊂M be defined over a number field and suppose codim M V = m codim M ⁡ V = m codim_(M)V=m\operatorname{codim}_{M} V=mcodimM⁡V=m. Let K K KKK be a compact subset of a leaf of F F F\mathcal{F}F. Then
(4.7) # ( K V ) poly K ( δ V , log dist 1 ( K , Σ V ) ) (4.7) # ( K ∩ V ) ⩽ poly K ⁡ δ V , log dist − 1 ⁡ K , Σ V {:(4.7)#(K nn V) <= poly_(K)(delta_(V),log_({:dist^(-1)(K,Sigma_(V)))):}:}\begin{equation*} \#(K \cap V) \leqslant \operatorname{poly}_{K}\left(\delta_{V}, \log _{\left.\operatorname{dist}^{-1}\left(K, \Sigma_{V}\right)\right)}\right. \tag{4.7} \end{equation*}(4.7)#(K∩V)⩽polyK⁡(δV,logdist−1⁡(K,ΣV))
In fact, the bound in Theorem 31 can be made more explicit giving the precise dependence on F F F\mathscr{F}F and on K K KKK, and this is important in some applications, but we omit the details for brevity. The same bound without the dependence on h ( V ) h ( V ) h(V)h(V)h(V) and log dist 1 ( K , Σ V ) log ⁡ dist − 1 ⁡ K , Σ V log dist^(-1)(K,Sigma_(V))\log \operatorname{dist}^{-1}\left(K, \Sigma_{V}\right)log⁡dist−1⁡(K,ΣV) would be a consequence of Conjecture 29, and establishing such a bound is probably the main step toward proving the conjecture.
As a consequence of Theorem 31 one can deduce some polylogarithmic pointcounting results in the spirit of Conjecture 13. We state the simplest result of this type for illustration below.
Theorem 32 ([5, corolLARY 6]). Suppose L p L p L_(p)\mathscr{L}_{p}Lp contains no germs of algebraic curves, for any p M p ∈ M p inMp \in \mathbb{M}p∈M. Let K K KKK be a compact subset of a leaf of F F F\mathcal{F}F. Then
(4.8) # K ( g , h ) = poly K ( g , h ) (4.8) # K ( g , h ) = poly K ⁡ ( g , h ) {:(4.8)#K(g","h)=poly_(K)(g","h):}\begin{equation*} \# K(g, h)=\operatorname{poly}_{K}(g, h) \tag{4.8} \end{equation*}(4.8)#K(g,h)=polyK⁡(g,h)
Once again, the dependence on K K KKK can be made explicit in terms of the foliation F F F\mathcal{F}F and this plays a role in some applications. In practice, Theorem 32 and its more refined forms can be used to deduce the conclusion of Conjecture 13 in most arithmetic applications, since the sets appearing in such applications are always defined in terms of leafs of some highly symmetric foliations.

4.5. Q-functions

Many important functions arising from geometry, such as period integrals, are Noetherian. Indeed, such functions arise as horizontal sections of the Gauss-Manin connection and can thus be viewed as solutions of a linear systems of differential equations. However, the structure R r N o e t h e r R r N o e t h e r R_(rNoether)\mathbb{R}_{\mathrm{rNoether}}RrNoether only contains the restrictions of such maps to compact domains. If we consider general Noetherian functions on noncompact domains, the result would not even be o-minimal (as illustrated by the sine and cosine functions, for instance). If one is to obtain an o-minimal structure, one must restrict singularities at the boundary.
One candidate class is provided by the notion of Q Q QQQ-functions considered in [10,11] Let P C n P ⊂ C n P subC^(n)P \subset \mathbb{C}^{n}P⊂Cn be a polydisc, Σ C n Σ ⊂ C n Sigma subC^(n)\Sigma \subset \mathbb{C}^{n}Σ⊂Cn a union of coordinate hyperplanes, and ∇ grad\nabla∇ the connection on P × C P × C â„“ P xxC^(â„“)P \times \mathbb{C}^{\ell}P×Câ„“ given by
(4.9) v = d v A v (4.9) ∇ v = d v − A ⋅ v {:(4.9)grad v=dv-A*v:}\begin{equation*} \nabla v=\mathrm{d} v-A \cdot v \tag{4.9} \end{equation*}(4.9)∇v=dv−A⋅v
where A A AAA is a matrix of one-forms holomorphic in P ¯ Σ P ¯ ∖ Σ bar(P)\\Sigma\bar{P} \backslash \SigmaP¯∖Σ. Suppose that the entries of A A AAA are algebraic and defined over Q ¯ Q ¯ bar(Q)\bar{Q}Q¯, that ∇ grad\nabla∇ has regular singularities along Σ Î£ Sigma\SigmaΣ, and that the monodromy of ∇ grad\nabla∇ is quasiunipotent. Finally, let P P ∘ P^(@)P^{\circ}P∘ be a simply-connected domain obtained by removing from P Σ P ∖ Σ P\\SigmaP \backslash \SigmaP∖Σ a branch cut { Arg x i = α i } Arg ⁡ x i = α i {Arg x_(i)=alpha_(i)}\left\{\operatorname{Arg} x_{i}=\alpha_{i}\right\}{Arg⁡xi=αi} for each of the components { x i = 0 } x i = 0 {x_(i)=0}\left\{x_{i}=0\right\}{xi=0} of Σ Î£ Sigma\SigmaΣ and for some choice of α i R α i ∈ R alpha_(i)inR\alpha_{i} \in \mathbb{R}αi∈R mod 2 π 2 Ï€ 2pi2 \pi2Ï€. Every solution of v = 0 ∇ v = 0 grad v=0\nabla v=0∇v=0 extends as a holomorphic vector-valued function in P P ∘ P^(@)P^{\circ}P∘. We call each component of such a function a Q Q Q\mathrm{Q}Q-function. Denote by R Q F R Q F R_(QF)\mathbb{R}_{\mathrm{QF}}RQF the structure generated by all such Q Q Q\mathrm{Q}Q-functions. This structure contains, as sections of the Gauss-Manin connection, all period integrals of algebraic families.
By the classical theory of regular-singular linear equations, every Q Q Q\mathrm{Q}Q-function is definable in R a n , exp R a n , exp R_(an,exp)\mathbb{R}_{\mathrm{an}, \exp }Ran,exp, and R Q F R Q F R_(QF)\mathbb{R}_{\mathrm{QF}}RQF is thus o-minimal.
Conjecture 33. The structure R Q F R Q F R_(QF)\mathbb{R}_{\mathrm{QF}}RQF is sharply o-minimal with respect to some FD-filtration.
Some initial motivation for Conjecture 33 is provided by the results of [10], which give effective bounds for the number of zeros of Q Q QQQ-functions restricted to any algebraic curve in P P PPP. However, treating systems of equations in several variables, and obtaining sharp bounds with respect to degrees, is still widely open.

5. APPLICATIONS IN ARITHMETIC GEOMETRY

In this section we describe some applications of sharply o-minimal structures in arithmetic geometry. For some of these, Theorem 12 suffices, while for others Conjecture 13 is necessary-in some suitable sharply o-minimal structure, such as the one conjectured to exist in Conjecture 33. However, in all cases discussed below one can actually carry out the strategy using known results, mostly Theorem 32 and its generalizations, in place of these general conjectures (though various technical difficulties must be resolved in each case). We thus hope to convince the reader that the strategy laid out below is feasible, on the one hand, and fits coherently into the general framework of sharply o-minimal structures, on the other.

5.1. Geometry governs arithmetic

Geometry governs arithmetic describes a general phenomenon in the interaction between geometry (for instance, algebraic geometry) and arithmetic: namely, that arithmetic problems often admit finitely many solutions unless there is an underlying geometric reason to expect infinitely many. Perhaps the most famous example is given by Mordell's conjecture, now Falting's theorem [16]: an algebraic curve C P 2 C ⊂ P 2 C subP^(2)C \subset \mathbb{P}^{2}C⊂P2 contains finitely many rational points, unless it is rational or elliptic. The two exceptions in Falting's theorem may be viewed as geometric obstructions to the finitude of rational solutions: the rational parametrization in the former, and the group law in the latter, are geometric mechanisms that can produce infinitely many rational points on the curve.
The Pila-Wilkie theorem itself may be viewed as an instance where geometry (namely the existence of an algebraic part) controls arithmetic (namely the occurrence of many rational points, as a function of height). A general strategy by Pila and Zannier [38] reduces many unlikely intersection questions to the Pila-Wilkie theorem. This has been used to prove the finiteness of solutions, under natural geometric hypotheses, to a large number of Diophantine problems. For instance, the finiteness of torsion points on a subvariety of an abelian variety (Manin-Mumford) [38]; the finiteness of maximal special points on subvariety of a Shimura variety (André-Oort) [35,41]; the finiteness of "torsion values" for sections of families of abelian surfaces (relative Manin-Mumford) [30]; the finiteness of the set of t C t ∈ C t inCt \in \mathbb{C}t∈C for which a Pell equation P 2 D Q 2 = 1 P 2 − D Q 2 = 1 P^(2)-DQ^(2)=1P^{2}-D Q^{2}=1P2−DQ2=1 with given D Q alg [ X , t ] D ∈ Q alg  [ X , t ] D inQ^("alg ")[X,t]D \in \mathbb{Q}^{\text {alg }}[X, t]D∈Qalg [X,t] is solvable in P , Q C [ X ] [ 2 , 31 , 32 ] P , Q ∈ C [ X ] [ 2 , 31 , 32 ] P,Q inC[X][2,31,32]P, Q \in \mathbb{C}[X][2,31,32]P,Q∈C[X][2,31,32]; the finiteness of the set of values t C t ∈ C t inCt \in \mathbb{C}t∈C where an algebraic one-form f t = f ( t , x ) d x f t = f ( t , x ) d x f_(t)=f(t,x)dxf_{t}=f(t, x) \mathrm{d} xft=f(t,x)dx is integrable in elementary terms [32]; and various other examples.

5.2. The Pila-Zannier strategy

Below we briefly explain the Pila-Zannier strategy in the Manin-Mumford case. Let A A AAA be an abelian variety and V A V ⊂ A V sub AV \subset AV⊂A an algebraic subvariety containing no cosets of abelian subvarieties, both defined over a number field K K K\mathbb{K}K.
Let π : [ 0 , 1 ] 2 g A Ï€ : [ 0 , 1 ] 2 g → A pi:[0,1]^(2g)rarr A\pi:[0,1]^{2 g} \rightarrow AÏ€:[0,1]2g→A be the universal covering map of A A AAA written in period coordinates, so that rational points with common denominator N N NNN in [ 0 , 1 ] 2 g [ 0 , 1 ] 2 g [0,1]^(2g)[0,1]^{2 g}[0,1]2g correspond to N N NNN torsion points in A A AAA. One checks that under our assumptions, X := π 1 ( V ) X := Ï€ − 1 ( V ) X:=pi^(-1)(V)X:=\pi^{-1}(V)X:=π−1(V) has no algebraic part (this can be done with the help of the Pila-Wilkie theorem as well, following a strategy of Pila in [35]). The Pila-Wilkie theorem then implies that the number of torsion points in V V VVV is at most C ( X , ε ) N ε C ( X , ε ) N ε C(X,epsi)N^(epsi)C(X, \varepsilon) N^{\varepsilon}C(X,ε)Nε where C ( X , ε ) C ( X , ε ) C(X,epsi)C(X, \varepsilon)C(X,ε) is the Pila-Wilkie constant.
On the other hand, there is c > 0 c > 0 c > 0c>0c>0 such that if p A p ∈ A p in Ap \in Ap∈A is an N N NNN-torsion point then [ Q ( p ) : Q ] A N c [ Q ( p ) : Q ] ≫ A N c [Q(p):Q]≫_(A)N^(c)[\mathbb{Q}(p): \mathbb{Q}] \gg_{A} N^{c}[Q(p):Q]≫ANc by a result of David [15]. Here the implied constant depends effectively on A A AAA. This is an example of a Galois lower bound, which in the Pila-Zannier strategy plays the yin to Pila-Wilkie's yang.
Choose ε = c / 2 ε = c / 2 epsi=c//2\varepsilon=c / 2ε=c/2 and suppose that V V VVV contains an N N NNN-torsion point p p ppp. Then it contains a fraction of [ K : Q ] 1 [ K : Q ] − 1 [K:Q]^(-1)[\mathbb{K}: \mathbb{Q}]^{-1}[K:Q]−1 of its Galois conjugates, and we obtain a contradiction as soon as N A , V C ( X , ε / 2 ) 2 / c N ≫ A , V C ( X , ε / 2 ) 2 / c N≫_(A,V)C(X,epsi//2)^(2//c)N \gg_{A, V} C(X, \varepsilon / 2)^{2 / c}N≫A,VC(X,ε/2)2/c. We thus proved a bound for the order of any torsion point in V V VVV, and in particular the finiteness of the set of torsion points.

5.3. Point counting and Galois lower bounds

Traditionally in the Pila-Zannier strategy, the Pila-Wilkie theorem is used to obtain an upper bound on the number of special points, while the competing Galois lower bounds are obtained using other methods-usually involving a combination of height estimates and transcendence methods, such as the results of David [15] or Masser-Wüstholz [29].
In [39] Schmidt suggested an alternative approach to proving Galois lower bounds, replacing the more traditional transcendence methods by polylogarithmic counting results as in Conjecture 13. We illustrate again in the Manin-Mumford setting. Let A A AAA be an abelian variety over a number field K K K\mathbb{K}K and let p A p ∈ A p in Ap \in Ap∈A be a torsion point. Consider now X X XXX given by the graph of the map π Ï€ pi\piÏ€ defined in the previous section, which is easily seen to contain no algebraic part. The points p , 2 p , , N p p , 2 p , … , N p p,2p,dots,Npp, 2 p, \ldots, N pp,2p,…,Np correspond to N N NNN points x 1 , , x n x 1 , … , x n x_(1),dots,x_(n)x_{1}, \ldots, x_{n}x1,…,xn on this graph. Recall that the height of a torsion point in A A AAA is O A ( 1 ) O A ( 1 ) O_(A)(1)O_{A}(1)OA(1) (since the Neron-Tate height is zero), and the height of the corresponding point in [ 0 , 1 ] 2 g [ 0 , 1 ] 2 g [0,1]^(2g)[0,1]^{2 g}[0,1]2g is at most N N NNN. It follows that h ( x j ) A log N h x j ≪ A log ⁡ N h(x_(j))≪A log Nh\left(x_{j}\right) \ll A \log Nh(xj)≪Alog⁡N. On the other hand, the field of definition of each x j x j x_(j)x_{j}xj is, by the product law of A A AAA, contained in K ( p ) K ( p ) K(p)\mathbb{K}(p)K(p). We thus have
(5.1) N # X ( [ K ( p ) : Q ] , log N ) = poly A ( [ K ( p ) : Q ] , log N ) (5.1) N ⩽ # X ( [ K ( p ) : Q ] , log ⁡ N ) = poly A ⁡ ( [ K ( p ) : Q ] , log ⁡ N ) {:(5.1)N <= #X([K(p):Q]","log N)=poly_(A)([K(p):Q]","log N):}\begin{equation*} N \leqslant \# X([\mathbb{K}(p): \mathbb{Q}], \log N)=\operatorname{poly}_{A}([\mathbb{K}(p): \mathbb{Q}], \log N) \tag{5.1} \end{equation*}(5.1)N⩽#X([K(p):Q],log⁡N)=polyA⁡([K(p):Q],log⁡N)
by Conjecture 13 , and this readily implies [ Q ( p ) : Q ] A N c [ Q ( p ) : Q ] ≫ A N c [Q(p):Q]≫_(A)N^(c)[\mathbb{Q}(p): \mathbb{Q}] \gg_{A} N^{c}[Q(p):Q]≫ANc for some c > 0 c > 0 c > 0c>0c>0, giving a new proof of the Galois lower bound for torsion points-and with it a "purely point-counting" proof of Manin-Mumford. This has been carried out in [5] using Theorem 32.
The main novelty of this strategy is that it applies in contexts where we have polylog counting result, and where the more traditional transcendence techniques are not available. In [12] this idea was applied in the context of a general Shimura variety S S SSS. It is shown that if
the special points p S p ∈ S p in Sp \in Sp∈S satisfy a discriminant-negligible height bound
(5.2) h ( p ) S , ε disc ( p ) ε , ε > 0 (5.2) h ( p ) ≪ S , ε disc ⁡ ( p ) ε , ∀ ε > 0 {:(5.2)h(p)≪_(S,epsi)disc(p)^(epsi)","quad AA epsi > 0:}\begin{equation*} h(p) \ll_{S, \varepsilon} \operatorname{disc}(p)^{\varepsilon}, \quad \forall \varepsilon>0 \tag{5.2} \end{equation*}(5.2)h(p)≪S,εdisc⁡(p)ε,∀ε>0
where disc ( p ) disc ⁡ ( p ) disc(p)\operatorname{disc}(p)disc⁡(p) is an appropriately defined discriminant, then they also satisfy a Galois bound [ Q ( p ) : Q ] S [ Q ( p ) : Q ] ≫ S [Q(p):Q]≫_(S)[\mathbb{Q}(p): \mathbb{Q}] \gg_{S}[Q(p):Q]≫S disc ( p ) c ( p ) c (p)^(c)(p)^{c}(p)c for some c > 0 c > 0 c > 0c>0c>0. Further, it was already known by the work of many authors based on the strategy of Pila [35] that this implies the André-Oort conjecture for S S SSS.
In the case of the Siegel modular variety S = A g S = A g S=A_(g)S=\mathscr{A}_{g}S=Ag, the height bound (5.2) was proved by Tsimerman [41] as a simple consequence of the recently proven averaged Colmez formula [1,46]. Tsimerman deduces the corresponding Galois bound from this using MasserWüstholz' isogeny estimates [29]. However, these estimates are proved using transcendence methods applied to abelian functions, and have no known counterpart applicable when the Shimura variety S S SSS does not parameterize abelian varieties (i.e., is not of abelian type). The result of [12] removes this obstruction.
A few months after [12] appeared on the arXiv, Pila-Shankar-Tsimerman have posted a paper [36] (with an appendix by Esnault, Groechenig) establishing the conjecture (5.2) for arbitrary Shimura varieties (by a highly sophisticated reduction to the A g A g A_(g)\mathcal{A}_{g}Ag case where averaged Colmez applies). In combination with [12] this establishes the André-Oort conjecture for general Shimura varieties (as well as for mixed Shimura varieties by the work of Gao [22]). It is interesting to note that the proof of André-Oort now involves three distinct applications of point-pointing: for functional transcendence, for Galois lower bounds, and for the Pila-Zannier strategy.

5.4. Effectivity and polynomial time computability

In each of the problems listed at the end of Section 5.1, it is natural to ask, when the data defining the problem is given over Q ¯ Q ¯ bar(Q)\overline{\mathbb{Q}}Q¯, whether one can effectively determine the finite set of solutions; and whether one can compute the set in polynomial time (say, in the degrees and the log-heights of the algebraic data involved, for a fixed dimension). In most cases mentioned above, the use of the Pila-Wilkie theorem is the only source of ineffectivity in the proofs. In fact, for all examples above excluding the André-Oort conjecture, definability of the relevant transcendental sets in an (effective) sharply o-minimal structure is expected to imply the (effective) polynomial time computability of these finite sets. This has been carried out using Theorem 12 for Manin-Mumford [6] and using Theorem 32 for a case of relative Manin-Mumford [5], giving effective polynomial time decidability of these problems. We see no obstacles in similarly applying [5] to the other problems listed above, though this is yet to be verified in each specific case.
In the André-Oort conjecture Siegel's class number bound introduces another source of ineffectivity in the finiteness result. Nevertheless, in [5] Theorem 32 is used to prove the polynomial time decidability of André-Oort for subvarieties of C n C n C^(n)\mathbb{C}^{n}Cn (i.e., by a polynomial-time algorithm involving a universal, undetermined Siegel constant). This is expected to extend to arbitrary Shimura varieties.

FUNDING

This research was supported by the ISRAEL SCIENCE FOUNDATION (grant No. 1167/17). This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No 802107).

REFERENCES

[1] F. Andreatta, E. Z. Goren, B. Howard, and K. Madapusi Pera, Faltings heights of abelian varieties with complex multiplication. Ann. of Math. (2) 187 (2018), no. 2, 391-531.
[2] F. Barroero and L. Capuano, Unlikely intersections in families of abelian varieties and the polynomial Pell equation. Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (3) 120 (2020), no. 2, 192-219.
[3] S. Basu, R. Pollack, and M.-F. Roy, Algorithms in real algebraic geometry. Second edn. Algorithms Comput. Math. 10, Springer, Berlin, 2006.
[4] G. Binyamini, Density of algebraic points on Noetherian varieties. Geom. Funct. Anal. 29 (2019), no. 1, 72-118.
[5] G. Binyamini, Point counting for foliations over number fields. 2020, arXiv:2009.00892.
[6] G. Binyamini, G. Jones, H. Schmidt, and M. Thomas, Effective Pila-Wilkie in the restricted sub-Pffafian structure (in preparation).
[7] G. Binyamini and D. Novikov, Multiplicities of Noetherian deformations. Geom. Funct. Anal. 25 (2015), no. 5, 1413-1439.
[8] G. Binyamini and D. Novikov, Wilkie's conjecture for restricted elementary functions. Ann. of Math. (2) 186 (2017), no. 1, 237-275.
[9] G. Binyamini and D. Novikov, Complex cellular structures. Ann. of Math. (2) 190 (2019), no. 1, 145-248.
[10] G. Binyamini, D. Novikov, and S. Yakovenko, On the number of zeros of Abelian integrals. Invent. Math. 181 (2010), no. 2, 227-289.
[11] G. Binyamini, D. Novikov, and S. Yakovenko, Quasialgebraic functions. In Algebraic methods in dynamical systems, pp. 61-81, Banach Center Publ. 94, Polish Acad. Sci. Inst. Math, Warsaw, 2011.
[12] G. Binyamini, H. Schmidt, and A. Yafaev, Lower bounds for Galois orbits of special points on Shimura varieties: a point-counting approach. 2021, arXiv:2104.05842.
[13] G. Binyamini and N. Vorobjov, Effective cylindrical cell decompositions for restricted sub-Pfaffian sets. Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN (2020); rnaa285, DOI 10.1093/imrn/rnaa285.
[14] D. Burguet, A proof of Yomdin-Gromov's algebraic lemma. Israel J. Math. 168 (2008), 291-316.
[15] S. David, Fonctions thêta et points de torsion des variétés abéliennes. Compos. Math. 78 (1991), no. 2, 121-160.
[16] G. Faltings, Endlichkeitssätze für abelsche Varietäten über Zahlkörpern. Invent. Math. 73 (1983), no. 3, 349-366.
[17] J. Freitag, Not Pfaffian. 2021, arXiv:2109.09230.
[18] J. Freitag and T. Scanlon, Strong minimality and the j j jjj-function. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) 20 (2018), no. 1, 119-136.
[19] A. Gabrielov, Relative closure and the complexity of Pfaffian elimination. In Discrete and computational geometry, pp. 441-460, Algorithms Combin. 25, Springer, Berlin, 2003.
[20] A. Gabrielov and A. Khovanskii, Multiplicity of a Noetherian intersection. In Geometry of differential equations, pp. 119-130, Amer. Math. Soc. Transl. Ser. 2 186, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1998.
[21] A. Gabrielov and N. Vorobjov, Complexity of computations with Pfaffian and Noetherian functions. In Normal forms, bifurcations and finiteness problems in differential equations, pp. 211-250, NATO Sci. Ser. II Math. Phys. Chem. 137, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 2004.
[22] Z. Gao, About the mixed André-Oort conjecture: reduction to a lower bound for the pure case. C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris 354 (2016), no. 7, 659-663.
[23] M. Gromov, Entropy, homology and semialgebraic geometry. Astérisque, 145-146 (1987), no. 5, 225-240.
[24] G. Jones and H. Schmidt, Pfaffian definitions of Weierstrass elliptic functions. Math. Ann. 379 (2021), no. 1-2, 825-864.
[25] A. G. KhovanskiÅ­, Fewnomials. Transl. Math. Monogr. 88, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1991.
[26] J.-M. Lion and J.-P. Rolin, Théorème de préparation pour les fonctions logarithmico-exponentielles. Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 47 (1997), no. 3, 859-884.
[27] A. Macintyre, Some observations about the real and imaginary parts of complex Pfaffian functions. In Model theory with applications to algebra and analysis. Vol. 1, pp. 215-223, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser. 349, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2008.
[28] D. Masser, Auxiliary polynomials in number theory. Cambridge Tracts in Math. 207, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2016.
[29] D. Masser and G. Wüstholz, Isogeny estimates for abelian varieties, and finiteness theorems. Ann. of Math. (2) 137 (1993), no. 3, 459-472.
[30] D. Masser and U. Zannier, Torsion anomalous points and families of elliptic curves. Amer. J. Math. 132 (2010), no. 6, 1677-1691.
[31] D. Masser and U. Zannier, Torsion points on families of simple abelian surfaces and Pell's equation over polynomial rings. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) 17 (2015), no. 9, 2379-2416.
[32] D. Masser and U. Zannier, Torsion points, Pell's equation, and integration in elementary terms. Acta Math. 225 (2020), no. 2, 227-313.
[33] A. Parusiński, Lipschitz stratification of subanalytic sets. Ann. Sci. Éc. Norm. Supér. (4) 27 (1994), no. 6, 661-696.
[34] Y. Peterzil and S. Starchenko, Definability of restricted theta functions and families of abelian varieties. Duke Math. J. 162 (2013), no. 4, 731-765.
[35] J. Pila, O-minimality and the André-Oort conjecture for C n C n C^(n)\mathbb{C}^{n}Cn. Ann. of Math. (2) 173 (2011), no. 3, 1779-1840.
[36] J. Pila, A. Shankar, and J. Tsimerman, Canonical heights on shimura varieties and the André-Oort conjecture, with an appendix by H. Esnault and M. Groechenig. 2021, arXiv:2109.08788.
[37] J. Pila and A. J. Wilkie, The rational points of a definable set. Duke Math. J. 133 (2006), no. 3, 591-616.
[38] J. Pila and U. Zannier, Rational points in periodic analytic sets and the ManinMumford conjecture. Atti Accad. Naz. Lincei Rend. Lincei Mat. Appl. 19 (2008), no. 2, 149-162.
[39] H. Schmidt, Counting rational points and lower bounds for Galois orbits. Atti Accad. Naz. Lincei Rend. Lincei Mat. Appl. 30 (2019), no. 3, 497-509.
[40] A. Surroca, Sur le nombre de points algébriques où une fonction analytique transcendante prend des valeurs algébriques. C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris 334 (2002), no. 9 , 721 725 9 , 721 − 725 9,721-7259,721-7259,721−725.
[41] J. Tsimerman, The André-Oort conjecture for A g A g A_(g)\mathscr{A}_{g}Ag. Ann. of Math. (2) 187 (2018), no. 2, 379-390.
[42] L. van den Dries, Tame topology and o-minimal structures. London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser. 248, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998.
[43] A. J. Wilkie, Model completeness results for expansions of the ordered field of real numbers by restricted Pfaffian functions and the exponential function. J. Amer. Math. Soc. 9 (1996), no. 4, 1051-1094.
[44] Y. Yomdin, Volume growth and entropy. Israel J. Math. 57 (1987), no. 3, 285-300.
[45] Y. Yomdin, Local complexity growth for iterations of real analytic mappings and semicontinuity moduli of the entropy. Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems 11 (1991), no. 3, 583-602.
[46] X. Yuan and S.-W. Zhang, On the averaged Colmez conjecture. Ann. of Math. (2) 187 (2018), no. 2, 533-638.

GAL BINYAMINI

Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel, gal.binyamini @ weizmann.ac.il

DMITRY NOVIKOV

Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel, dmitry.novikov @ weizmann.ac.il

RAMSEY THEORY OF HOMOGENEOUS STRUCTURES: CURRENT TRENDS AND OPEN PROBLEMS

NATASHA DOBRINEN

This paper is dedicated to Norbert Sauer for his seminal works on the partition theory of homogeneous structures, and for his mathematical and personal generosity.

Abstract

This article highlights historical achievements in the partition theory of countable homogeneous relational structures, and presents recent work, current trends, and open problems. Exciting recent developments include new methods involving logic, topological Ramsey spaces, and category theory. The paper concentrates on big Ramsey degrees, presenting their essential structure where known and outlining areas for further development. Cognate areas, including infinite dimensional Ramsey theory of homogeneous structures and partition theory of uncountable structures, are also discussed.

MATHEMATICS SUBJECT CLASSIFICATION 2020

Primary 05C55; Secondary 03C15, 03E02, 03E75, 05C05, 05C15

KEYWORDS

Ramsey theory, homogeneous structure, big Ramsey degree, coding tree

1. INTRODUCTION

Ramsey theory is a beautiful subject which interrelates with a multitude of mathematical fields. In particular, since its inception, developments in Ramsey theory have often been motivated by problems in logic; in turn, Ramsey theory has instigated some seminal developments in logic. The intent of this article is to provide the general mathematician with an introduction to the intriguing subject of Ramsey theory on homogeneous structures while being detailed enough to describe the state-of-the-art and the main ideas at play. We present historical highlights and discuss why solutions to problems on homogeneous structures require more than just straightforward applications of finite structural Ramsey theory. In the following sections, we map out collections of recent results and methods which were developed to overcome obstacles associated with forbidden substructures. These new methods involve applications from logic (especially forcing but also ideas from model theory), topological Ramsey spaces, and category theory.
The subject of Ramsey theory on infinite structures begins with this lovely theorem.
Theorem 1.1 (Ramsey, [58]). Given positive integers k k kkk and r r rrr and a coloring of the k k kkk-element subsets of the natural numbers N N N\mathbb{N}N into r r rrr colors, there is an infinite set of natural numbers N N N ⊆ N N subeNN \subseteq \mathbb{N}N⊆N such that all k k kkk-element subsets of N N NNN have the same color.
There are two natural interpretations of Ramsey's theorem in terms of infinite structures. First, letting < < <<< denote the standard linear order on N N N\mathbb{N}N, Ramsey's theorem shows that given any finite coloring of all linearly ordered substructures of ( N , < ) ( N , < ) (N, < )(\mathbb{N},<)(N,<) of size k k kkk, there is an isomorphic substructure ( N , < ) ( N , < ) (N, < )(N,<)(N,<) of ( N , < ) ( N , < ) (N, < )(\mathbb{N},<)(N,<) such that all linearly ordered substructures of ( N , < ) ( N , < ) (N, < )(N,<)(N,<) of size k k kkk have the same color. Second, one may think of the k k kkk-element subsets of N N N\mathbb{N}N as k k kkk-hyperedges. Then Ramsey's theorem yields that, given any finite coloring of the k k kkk-hyperedges of the complete k k kkk-regular hypergraph on infinitely many vertices, there is an isomorphic subgraph in which all k k kkk-hyperedges have the same color.
Given this, one might naturally wonder about other structures.
Question 1.2. Which infinite structures carry an analogue of Ramsey's theorem?
The rational numbers ( Q , < ) ( Q , < ) (Q, < )(\mathbb{Q},<)(Q,<) as a dense linearly ordered structure (without endpoints) was the earliest test case. It is a fun exercise to show that given any coloring of the rational numbers into finitely many colors, there is one color-class which contains a dense linear order, that is, an isomorphic subcopy of the rationals in one color. Thus, the rationals satisfy a structural pigeonhole principle known as indivisibility.
The direct analogy with Ramsey's theorem ends, however, when we consider pairs of rationals. It follows from the work of Sierpinski in [65] that there is a coloring of the pairs of rationals into two colors so that both colors persist in every isomorphic subcopy of the rationals. Sierpiński's coloring provides a clear understanding of one of the fundamental issues arising in partition theory of infinite structures not occurring in finite structural Ramsey theory. Let { q i : i N } q i : i ∈ N {q_(i):i inN}\left\{q_{i}: i \in \mathbb{N}\right\}{qi:i∈N} be a listing of the rational numbers, without repetition, and for i < j i < j i < ji<ji<j define c ( { q i , q j } ) = c q i , q j = c({q_(i),q_(j)})=c\left(\left\{q_{i}, q_{j}\right\}\right)=c({qi,qj})= blue if q i < q j q i < q j q_(i) < q_(j)q_{i}<q_{j}qi<qj, and c ( { q i , q j } ) = c q i , q j = c({q_(i),q_(j)})=c\left(\left\{q_{i}, q_{j}\right\}\right)=c({qi,qj})= red if q j < q i q j < q i q_(j) < q_(i)q_{j}<q_{i}qj<qi. Then in
each subset Q Q Q ⊆ Q Q subeQQ \subseteq \mathbb{Q}Q⊆Q forming a dense linear order, both color classes persist; that is, there are pairs of rationals in Q Q QQQ colored red and also pairs of rationals in Q Q QQQ colored blue. Since it is impossible to find an isomorphic subcopy of the rationals in which all pairsets have the same color, a direct analogue of Ramsey's theorem does not hold for the rationals.
The failure of the straightforward analogue of Ramsey's theorem is not the end, but rather just the beginning of the story. Galvin (unpublished) showed a few decades later that there is a bound on the number of unavoidable colors: Given any coloring of the pairs of rationals into finitely many colors, there is a subcopy of the rationals in which all pairs belong to the union of two color classes. Now one sees that Question 1.2 ought to be refined.
Question 1.3. For which infinite structures S S S\mathbf{S}S is there a Ramsey-analogue in the following sense: Let A A A\mathbf{A}A be a finite substructure of S S S\mathbf{S}S. Is there a positive integer T T TTT such that for any coloring of the copies of A A A\mathbf{A}A into finitely many colors, there is a subcopy S S ′ S^(')\mathbf{S}^{\prime}S′ of S S S\mathbf{S}S in which there are no more than T T TTT many colors for the copies of A A A\mathbf{A}A ?
The least such integer T T TTT, when it exists, is denoted T T TTT (A) and called the big Ramsey degree of A A A\mathbf{A}A in S, a term coined in Kechris-Pestov-Todorcevic (2005). The "big" refers to the fact that we require an isomorphic subcopy of an infinite structure in which the number of colors is as small as possible (in contrast to the concept of small Ramsey degree in finite structural Ramsey theory).
Notice how Sierpiński played the enumeration { q i : i N } q i : i ∈ N {q_(i):i inN}\left\{q_{i}: i \in \mathbb{N}\right\}{qi:i∈N} of the rationals against the dense linear order to construct a coloring of pairsets of rationals into two colors, each of which persists in every subcopy of the rationals. This simple, but deep idea sheds light on a fundamental difference between finite and infinite structural Ramsey theory. The interplay between the enumeration and the relations on an infinite structure has bearing on the number of colors that must persist in any subcopy of that structure. We will see examples of this at work throughout this article and explain the general principles which have been found for certain classes of structures with relations of arity at most two, even as the subject aims towards a future overarching theory of big Ramsey degrees.

2. THE QUESTIONS

Given a finite relational language L = { R i : i < k } L = R i : i < k L={R_(i):i < k}\mathscr{L}=\left\{R_{i}: i<k\right\}L={Ri:i<k} with each relation symbol R i R i R_(i)R_{i}Ri of some finite arity, say, n i n i n_(i)n_{i}ni, an L L L\mathscr{L}L-structure is a tuple A = A , R 0 A , , R k 1 A A = A , R 0 A , … , R k − 1 A A=(:A,R_(0)^(A),dots,R_(k-1)^(A):)\mathbf{A}=\left\langle A, R_{0}^{\mathbf{A}}, \ldots, R_{k-1}^{\mathbf{A}}\right\rangleA=⟨A,R0A,…,Rk−1A⟩, where A A ≠ ∅ A!=O/A \neq \emptysetA≠∅ is the universe of A A A\mathbf{A}A and for each i < k , R i A A n i i < k , R i A ⊆ A n i i < k,R_(i)^(A)subeA^(n_(i))i<k, R_{i}^{\mathbf{A}} \subseteq A^{n_{i}}i<k,RiA⊆Ani. For L L L\mathscr{L}L-structures A A A\mathbf{A}A and B B B\mathbf{B}B, an embedding from A A A\mathbf{A}A into B B B\mathbf{B}B is an injection e : A B e : A → B e:A rarr Be: A \rightarrow Be:A→B such that for all i < k , R i A ( a 1 , , a n i ) i < k , R i A a 1 , … , a n i ↔ i < k,R_(i)^(A)(a_(1),dots,a_(n_(i)))harri<k, R_{i}^{\mathbf{A}}\left(a_{1}, \ldots, a_{n_{i}}\right) \leftrightarrowi<k,RiA(a1,…,ani)↔ R i B ( e ( a 1 ) , , e ( a n i ) ) R i B e a 1 , … , e a n i R_(i)^(B)(e(a_(1)),dots,e(a_(n_(i))))R_{i}^{\mathbf{B}}\left(e\left(a_{1}\right), \ldots, e\left(a_{n_{i}}\right)\right)RiB(e(a1),…,e(ani)). The e e eee-image of A A A\mathbf{A}A is a copy of A A A\mathbf{A}A in B B B\mathbf{B}B. If e e eee is the identity map, then A A A\mathbf{A}A is a substructure of B B B\mathbf{B}B. An isomorphism is an embedding which is onto its image. We write A B A ≤ B A <= B\mathbf{A} \leq \mathbf{B}A≤B exactly when there is an embedding of A A A\mathbf{A}A into B B B\mathbf{B}B, and A B A ≅ B A~=B\mathbf{A} \cong \mathbf{B}A≅B exactly when A A A\mathbf{A}A and B B B\mathbf{B}B are isomorphic.
A class K K K\mathcal{K}K of finite structures for a relational language L L L\mathscr{L}L is called a Fraïssé class if it is hereditary, satisfies the joint embedding and amalgamation properties, contains (up to isomorphism) only countably many structures, and contains structures of arbitrarily large
finite cardinality. Class K K K\mathcal{K}K is hereditary if whenever B K B ∈ K BinK\mathbf{B} \in \mathcal{K}B∈K and A B A ≤ B A <= B\mathbf{A} \leq \mathbf{B}A≤B, then also A K A ∈ K AinK\mathbf{A} \in \mathcal{K}A∈K; K K K\mathcal{K}K satisfies the joint embedding property if for any A , B K A , B ∈ K A,BinK\mathbf{A}, \mathbf{B} \in \mathcal{K}A,B∈K, there is a C K C ∈ K CinK\mathbf{C} \in \mathcal{K}C∈K such that A C A ≤ C A <= C\mathbf{A} \leq \mathbf{C}A≤C and B C ; K B ≤ C ; K B <= C;K\mathbf{B} \leq \mathbf{C} ; \mathcal{K}B≤C;K satisfies the amalgamation property if for any embeddings f : A B f : A → B f:ArarrBf: \mathbf{A} \rightarrow \mathbf{B}f:A→B and g : A C g : A → C g:ArarrCg: \mathbf{A} \rightarrow \mathbf{C}g:A→C, with A , B , C K A , B , C ∈ K A,B,CinK\mathbf{A}, \mathbf{B}, \mathbf{C} \in \mathcal{K}A,B,C∈K, there is a D K D ∈ K DinK\mathbf{D} \in \mathcal{K}D∈K and there are embeddings r : B D r : B → D r:BrarrDr: \mathbf{B} \rightarrow \mathbf{D}r:B→D and s : C D s : C → D s:CrarrDs: \mathbf{C} \rightarrow \mathbf{D}s:C→D such that r f = s g r ∘ f = s ∘ g r@f=s@gr \circ f=s \circ gr∘f=s∘g. A Fraïssé class K K K\mathcal{K}K satisfies the strong amalgamation property (SAP) if given A , B , C K A , B , C ∈ K A,B,CinK\mathbf{A}, \mathbf{B}, \mathbf{C} \in \mathcal{K}A,B,C∈K and embeddings e : A B e : A → B e:ArarrBe: \mathbf{A} \rightarrow \mathbf{B}e:A→B and f : A C f : A → C f:ArarrCf: \mathbf{A} \rightarrow \mathbf{C}f:A→C, there is some D K D ∈ K DinK\mathbf{D} \in \mathcal{K}D∈K and embeddings e : B D e ′ : B → D e^('):BrarrDe^{\prime}: \mathbf{B} \rightarrow \mathbf{D}e′:B→D and f : C D f ′ : C → D f^('):CrarrDf^{\prime}: \mathbf{C} \rightarrow \mathbf{D}f′:C→D such that e e = f f e ′ ∘ e = f ′ ∘ f e^(')@e=f^(')@fe^{\prime} \circ e=f^{\prime} \circ fe′∘e=f′∘f, and e [ B ] f [ C ] = e e [ A ] = f f [ A ] e ′ [ B ] ∩ f ′ [ C ] = e ′ ∘ e [ A ] = f ′ ∘ f [ A ] e^(')[B]nnf^(')[C]=e^(')@e[A]=f^(')@f[A]e^{\prime}[B] \cap f^{\prime}[C]=e^{\prime} \circ e[A]=f^{\prime} \circ f[A]e′[B]∩f′[C]=e′∘e[A]=f′∘f[A]. We say that K K K\mathcal{K}K satisfies the free amalgamation property (FAP) if it satisfies the SAP and, moreover, D D D\mathbf{D}D can be chosen so that D D D\mathbf{D}D has no additional relations other than those inherited from B B B\mathbf{B}B and C C C\mathbf{C}C.
Let A , B , C A , B , C A,B,C\mathbf{A}, \mathbf{B}, \mathbf{C}A,B,C be L L L\mathscr{L}L-structures such that A B C A ≤ B ≤ C A <= B <= C\mathbf{A} \leq \mathbf{B} \leq \mathbf{C}A≤B≤C. We use ( B A ) ( B A ) ((B)/(A))\binom{\mathbf{B}}{\mathbf{A}}(BA) to denote the set of all copies of A A A\mathbf{A}A in B B B\mathbf{B}B. The Erdós - Rado arrow notation C ( B ) k A C → ( B ) k A Crarr(B)_(k)^(A)\mathbf{C} \rightarrow(\mathbf{B})_{k}^{\mathbf{A}}C→(B)kA means that for each coloring of ( C A ) ( C A ) ((C)/(A))\binom{\mathbf{C}}{\mathbf{A}}(CA) into k k kkk colors, there is a B ( C B ) B ′ ∈ ( C B ) B^(')in((C)/(B))\mathbf{B}^{\prime} \in\binom{\mathbf{C}}{\mathbf{B}}B′∈(CB) such that ( B B A ) B B A ([B_(B)^(A)])\left(\begin{array}{l}\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{B}}^{\mathbf{A}}\end{array}\right)(BBA) is monochromatic, meaning every member of ( B A ) ( B ′ A ) ((B^('))/(A))\binom{\mathbf{B}^{\prime}}{\mathbf{A}}(B′A) has the same color.
Definition 2.1. A Fraïssé class K K K\mathcal{K}K has the Ramsey property if for any two structures A B A ≤ B A <= B\mathbf{A} \leq \mathbf{B}A≤B in K K K\mathcal{K}K and any k 2 k ≥ 2 k >= 2k \geq 2k≥2, there is a C K C ∈ K CinK\mathbf{C} \in \mathcal{K}C∈K with B C B ≤ C B <= C\mathbf{B} \leq \mathbf{C}B≤C such that C ( B ) k A C → ( B ) k A Crarr(B)_(k)^(A)\mathbf{C} \rightarrow(\mathbf{B})_{k}^{\mathbf{A}}C→(B)kA.
Many Fraïssé classes, such as the class of finite graphs, do not have the Ramsey property. However, by allowing a finite expansion of the language, often by just a linear order, the Ramsey property becomes more feasible. Letting < < <<< be a binary relation symbol not in the language L L L\mathscr{L}L of K K K\mathcal{K}K, an L { < } L ∪ { < } Luu{ < }\mathscr{L} \cup\{<\}L∪{<}-structure is in K < K < K^( < )\mathcal{K}^{<}K<if and only if its universe is linearly ordered by < < <<< and its L L L\mathscr{L}L-reduct is a member of K K K\mathcal{K}K. A highlight is the work of Nešetřil and Rödl in [51] and [52], proving that for any Fraïssé class K K K\mathcal{K}K with FAP, its ordered version K < K < K^( < )\mathcal{K}^{<}K< has the Ramsey property. The recent paper [40] by Hubička and Nešetřil presents the stateof-the-art in finite structural Ramsey theory. Examples of Fraïssé classes with the Ramsey property include the class of finite linear orders, and the classes of finite ordered versions of graphs, digraphs, tournaments, triangle-free graphs, posets, metric spaces, hypergraphs, hypergraphs omitting some irreducible substructures, and many more.
A structure K K K\mathbf{K}K is called universal for a class of structures K K K\mathcal{K}K if each member of K K K\mathcal{K}K embeds into K K K\mathbf{K}K. A structure K K K\mathbf{K}K is homogeneous if each isomorphism between finite substructures of K K K\mathbf{K}K extends to an automorphism of K K K\mathbf{K}K. Unless otherwise specified, we will write homogeneous to mean countably infinite homogeneous, such structures being the focus of this paper. The age of an infinite structure K K K\mathbf{K}K, denoted Age ( K ) Age ⁡ ( K ) Age(K)\operatorname{Age}(\mathbf{K})Age⁡(K), is the collection of all finite structures which embed into K K K\mathbf{K}K. A fundamental theorem of Fraïssé from [31] shows that each Fraïssé class gives rise to a homogeneous structure via a construction called the Fraïsé limit. Conversely, given any countable homogeneous structure K K K\mathbf{K}K, Age ( K ) Age ⁡ ( K ) Age(K)\operatorname{Age}(\mathbf{K})Age⁡(K) is a Fraïssé class and, moreover, the Fraïssé limit of Age ( K ) Age ⁡ ( K ) Age(K)\operatorname{Age}(\mathbf{K})Age⁡(K) is isomorphic to K K K\mathbf{K}K. The Kechris-Pestov-Todorcevic correspondence between the Ramsey property of a Fraïssé class and extreme amenability of the automorphism group of its Fraïssé limit in [41] propelled a burst of discoveries of more Fraïssé classes with the Ramsey property.
First we state an esoteric but driving question in the area.
Question 2.2. What is a big Ramsey degree?
What is the essential nature of a big Ramsey degree? Why is it that given a Fraïssé class K K K\mathcal{K}K satisfying the Ramsey property, its Fraïssé limit usually fails to carry the full analogue of Ramsey's Theorem 1.1 (i.e., all big Ramsey degrees being one)? A theorem of Hjorth in [37] showed that for any homogeneous structure K K K\mathbf{K}K with | Aut ( K ) | > 1 | Aut ⁡ ( K ) | > 1 |Aut(K)| > 1|\operatorname{Aut}(\mathbf{K})|>1|Aut⁡(K)|>1, there is a structure in Age ( K ) ( K ) (K)(\mathbf{K})(K) with big Ramsey degree at least two. While much remains open, we now have an answer to Question 2.2 for FAP and some SAP homogeneous structures with finitely many relations of arity at most two, and these results will be discussed in the following sections.
We say that S S S\mathbf{S}S has finite big Ramsey degrees if T T TTT (A) exists for each finite substructure A of S S S\mathbf{S}S. We say that exact big Ramsey degrees are known if there is either a computation of the degrees or a characterization from which they can be computed. Indivisibility holds if T ( A ) = 1 T ( A ) = 1 T(A)=1T(\mathbf{A})=1T(A)=1 for each one-element substructure A A A\mathbf{A}A of S S S\mathbf{S}S. The following questions progress in order of strength: A positive answer to (3) implies a positive answer to (2), which in turn implies a positive answer to (1).
Question 2.3. Given a homogeneous structure K K K\mathbf{K}K,
(1) Does K K K\mathbf{K}K have finite big Ramsey degrees? That is, can one find upper bounds ensuring that big Ramsey degrees exist?
(2) If K K K\mathbf{K}K has finite big Ramsey degrees, is there a characterization of the exact big Ramsey degrees via canonical partitions? If yes, calculate or find an algorithm to calculate them.
(3) Does K K K\mathbf{K}K carry a big Ramsey structure?
Part (2) of this question involves finding canonical partitions.
Definition 2.4 (Canonical Partition, [44]). Given a Fraïssé class K K K\mathcal{K}K with Fraïssé limit K K K\mathbf{K}K, and given A K A ∈ K AinK\mathbf{A} \in \mathcal{K}A∈K, a partition { P i : i < n } P i : i < n {P_(i):i < n}\left\{P_{i}: i<n\right\}{Pi:i<n} of ( K A ) ( K A ) ((K)/(A))\binom{\mathbf{K}}{\mathbf{A}}(KA) is canonical if the following hold: For each finite coloring of ( K A ) ( K A ) ((K)/(A))\binom{\mathbf{K}}{\mathbf{A}}(KA), there is a subcopy K K ′ K^(')\mathbf{K}^{\prime}K′ of K K K\mathbf{K}K such that for each i < n i < n i < ni<ni<n, all members of P i ( K A ) P i ∩ ( K ′ A ) P_(i)nn((K^('))/(A))P_{i} \cap\binom{\mathbf{K}^{\prime}}{\mathbf{A}}Pi∩(K′A) have the same color; and persistence: For every subcopy K K ′ K^(')\mathbf{K}^{\prime}K′ of K K K\mathbf{K}K and each i < n , P i ( K A ) i < n , P i ∩ ( K ′ A ) i < n,P_(i)nn((K^('))/(A))i<n, P_{i} \cap\binom{\mathbf{K}^{\prime}}{\mathbf{A}}i<n,Pi∩(K′A) is nonempty.
Canonical partitions recover an exact analogue of Ramsey's theorem for each piece of the partition. In practice such partitions are characterized by adding extra structure to K K K\mathbf{K}K, including the enumeration of the universe of K K K\mathbf{K}K and a tree-like structure capturing the relations of K K K\mathbf{K}K against the enumeration.
Part (3) of Question 2.3 has to do with a connection between big Ramsey degrees and topological dynamics, in the spirit of the Kechris-Pestov-Todorcevic correspondence, proved by Zucker in [70]. A big Ramsey structure is essentially a finite expansion K K ∗ K^(**)\mathbf{K}^{*}K∗ of K K K\mathbf{K}K so that each finite substructure of K K ∗ K^(**)\mathbf{K}^{*}K∗ has big Ramsey degree one, and, moreover, the unavoidable colorings cohere in that for A , B A , B ∈ A,Bin\mathbf{A}, \mathbf{B} \inA,B∈ Age ( K ) ( K ) (K)(\mathbf{K})(K) with A A A\mathbf{A}A embedding into B B B\mathbf{B}B, the canonical partition for copies of B B B\mathbf{B}B when restricted to copies of A A A\mathbf{A}A recovers the canonical partition for
copies of A. Big Ramsey structures imply canonical partitions. The reverse is not known in general, but certain types of canonical partitions are known to imply big Ramsey structures (Theorem 6.10 in [8]), and it seems reasonable to the author to expect that (1)-(3) are equivalent.
Canonical partitions and big Ramsey structures are really getting at the question of whether we can find an optimal finite expansion K K ∗ K^(**)\mathbf{K}^{*}K∗ of a given homogeneous structure K K K\mathbf{K}K so that K K ∗ K^(**)\mathbf{K}^{*}K∗ carries an exact analogue of Ramsey's theorem. In this sense, big Ramsey degrees are not quite so mysterious, but are rather saying that an exact analogue of Ramsey's theorem holds for an appropriately expanded structure. The question then becomes: What is the appropriate expansion?

3. CASE STUDY: THE RATIONALS

The big Ramsey degrees for the rationals were determined by 1979. Laver in 1969 (unpublished, see [10]) utilized a Ramsey theorem for trees due to Milliken [50] (Theorem 3.2) to find upper bounds. Devlin completed the picture in his P h D P h D PhD\mathrm{PhD}PhD thesis [10], calculating the big Ramsey degrees of the rationals. These surprisingly turn out to be related to the odd coefficients in the Taylor series of the tangent function: The big Ramsey degree for n n nnn-element subsets of the rationals is T ( n ) = ( 2 n 1 ) ! c 2 n 1 T ( n ) = ( 2 n − 1 ) ! c 2 n − 1 T(n)=(2n-1)!c_(2n-1)T(n)=(2 n-1)!c_{2 n-1}T(n)=(2n−1)!c2n−1, where c k c k c_(k)c_{k}ck is the k k kkk th coefficient in the Taylor series for the tangent function, tan ( x ) = k = 0 c k x k tan ⁡ ( x ) = ∑ k = 0 ∞   c k x k tan(x)=sum_(k=0)^(oo)c_(k)x^(k)\tan (x)=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty} c_{k} x^{k}tan⁡(x)=∑k=0∞ckxk. As Todorcevic states, the big Ramsey degrees for the rationals "characterize the Ramsey theoretic properties of the countable dense linear ordering ( Q , < ) ( Q , < ) (Q, < )(\mathbb{Q},<)(Q,<) in a very precise sense. The numbers T ( n ) T ( n ) T(n)T(n)T(n) are some sort of Ramsey degrees that measure the complexity of an arbitrary finite coloring of the n n nnn-element subsets of Q Q Q\mathbb{Q}Q modulo, of course, restricting to the n n nnn-element subsets of X X XXX for some appropriately chosen dense linear subordering X X XXX of Q Q Q\mathbb{Q}Q." (page 143, [66], notation modified)
We present Devlin's characterization of the big Ramsey degrees of the rationals and the four main steps in his proof. (A detailed proof appears in Section 6.3 of [66].) Then we will present a method from [8] using coding trees of 1-types which bypasses nonessential constructs, providing what we see as a satisfactory answer to Question 2.2 for the rationals.
We use some standard mathematical logic notation, providing definitions as needed for the general mathematician. The set of all natural numbers { 0 , 1 , 2 , } { 0 , 1 , 2 , … } {0,1,2,dots}\{0,1,2, \ldots\}{0,1,2,…} is denoted by ω ω omega\omegaω. Each natural number k ω k ∈ ω k in omegak \in \omegak∈ω is equated with the set { 0 , , k 1 } { 0 , … , k − 1 } {0,dots,k-1}\{0, \ldots, k-1\}{0,…,k−1} and its natural linear ordering. For us k ω k ∈ ω k in omegak \in \omegak∈ω and k < ω k < ω k < omegak<\omegak<ω are synonymous. For k ω , k < ω k ∈ ω , k < ω k in omega,k^( < omega)k \in \omega, k^{<\omega}k∈ω,k<ω denotes the tree of all finite sequences with entries in { 0 , , k 1 } { 0 , … , k − 1 } {0,dots,k-1}\{0, \ldots, k-1\}{0,…,k−1}, and ω < ω ω < ω omega^( < omega)\omega^{<\omega}ω<ω denotes the tree of all finite sequences of natural numbers. Finite sequences with any sort of entries are thought of as functions with domain some natural number. Thus, for a finite sequence t t ttt the length of t t ttt, denoted | t | | t | |t||t||t|, is the domain of the function t t ttt, and for i dom ( t ) , t ( i ) i ∈ dom ⁡ ( t ) , t ( i ) i in dom(t),t(i)i \in \operatorname{dom}(t), t(i)i∈dom⁡(t),t(i) denotes the i i iii th entry of the sequence t t ttt. For ω â„“ ∈ ω â„“in omega\ell \in \omegaℓ∈ω, we write t t ↾ â„“ t↾ℓt \upharpoonright \ellt↾ℓ to denote the initial segment of t t ttt of length â„“ â„“\ellâ„“ if | t | â„“ ≤ | t | â„“ <= |t|\ell \leq|t|ℓ≤|t|, and t t ttt otherwise. For two finite sequences s s sss and t t ttt, we write s t s ⊑ t s⊑ts \sqsubseteq ts⊑t when s s sss is an initial segment of t t ttt, and we write s t s ⊏ t s⊏ts \sqsubset ts⊏t when s s sss is a proper initial segment of t t ttt, meaning that s t s ⊑ t s⊑ts \sqsubseteq ts⊑t and s t s ≠ t s!=ts \neq ts≠t. We write s t s ∧ t s^^ts \wedge ts∧t to denote the meet of s s sss and t t ttt, that is, the longest sequence which is an initial segment of both s s sss and t t ttt. Given a subset S S SSS of a tree of finite sequences, the meet
closure of S S SSS, denoted cl ( S ) cl ⁡ ( S ) cl(S)\operatorname{cl}(S)cl⁡(S), is the set of all nodes in S S SSS along with the set of all meets s t s ∧ t s^^ts \wedge ts∧t, for s , t S s , t ∈ S s,t in Ss, t \in Ss,t∈S.
A Ramsey theorem for trees, due to Milliken, played a central role in Devlin's work and has informed subsequent approaches to finding upper bounds for big Ramsey degrees. In this area, a subset T ω < ω T ⊆ ω < ω T subeomega^( < omega)T \subseteq \omega^{<\omega}T⊆ω<ω is called a tree if there is a subset L T ω L T ⊆ ω L_(T)sube omegaL_{T} \subseteq \omegaLT⊆ω such that T = T = T=T=T= { t : t T , L T } t ↾ â„“ : t ∈ T , â„“ ∈ L T {t↾ℓ:t in T,â„“inL_(T)}\left\{t \upharpoonright \ell: t \in T, \ell \in L_{T}\right\}{t↾ℓ:t∈T,ℓ∈LT}. Thus, a tree is closed under initial segments of lengths in L T L T L_(T)L_{T}LT, but not necessarily closed under all initial segments in ω < ω ω < ω omega^( < omega)\omega^{<\omega}ω<ω. The height of a node t t ttt in T T TTT, denoted ht T ( t ) ht T ⁡ ( t ) ht_(T)(t)\operatorname{ht}_{T}(t)htT⁡(t), is the order-type of the set { s T : s t } { s ∈ T : s ⊏ t } {s in T:s⊏t}\{s \in T: s \sqsubset t\}{s∈T:s⊏t}, linearly ordered by ⊏ ⊏\sqsubset⊏. We write T ( n ) T ( n ) T(n)T(n)T(n) to denote { t T : ht T ( t ) = n } t ∈ T : ht T ⁡ ( t ) = n {t in T:ht_(T)(t)=n}\left\{t \in T: \operatorname{ht}_{T}(t)=n\right\}{t∈T:htT⁡(t)=n}. For t T t ∈ T t in Tt \in Tt∈T, let Succ T ( t ) = { s ( | t | + 1 ) : s T Succ T ⁡ ( t ) = { s ↾ ( | t | + 1 ) : s ∈ T Succ_(T)(t)={s↾(|t|+1):s in T\operatorname{Succ}_{T}(t)=\{s \upharpoonright(|t|+1): s \in TSuccT⁡(t)={s↾(|t|+1):s∈T and t s } t ⊏ s } t⊏s}t \sqsubset s\}t⊏s}, noting that Succ T ( t ) T Succ T ⁡ ( t ) ⊆ T Succ_(T)(t)sube T\operatorname{Succ}_{T}(t) \subseteq TSuccT⁡(t)⊆T only if | t | + 1 L T | t | + 1 ∈ L T |t|+1inL_(T)|t|+1 \in L_{T}|t|+1∈LT.
A subtree S T S ⊆ T S sube TS \subseteq TS⊆T is a strong subtree of T T TTT if L S L T L S ⊆ L T L_(S)subeL_(T)L_{S} \subseteq L_{T}LS⊆LT and each node s s sss in S S SSS branches as widely as T T TTT will allow, meaning that for s S s ∈ S s in Ss \in Ss∈S, for each t Succ T ( s ) t ∈ Succ T ⁡ ( s ) t inSucc_(T)(s)t \in \operatorname{Succ}_{T}(s)t∈SuccT⁡(s) there is an extension s S s ′ ∈ S s^(')in Ss^{\prime} \in Ss′∈S such that t s t ⊑ s ′ t⊑s^(')t \sqsubseteq s^{\prime}t⊑s′. For the next theorem, define i < d T i ( n ) ∏ i < d   T i ( n ) prod_(i < d)T_(i)(n)\prod_{i<d} T_{i}(n)∏i<dTi(n) to be the set of sequences ( t 0 , , t d 1 ) t 0 , … , t d − 1 (t_(0),dots,t_(d-1))\left(t_{0}, \ldots, t_{d-1}\right)(t0,…,td−1) where t i T i ( n ) t i ∈ T i ( n ) t_(i)inT_(i)(n)t_{i} \in T_{i}(n)ti∈Ti(n), the product of the n n nnnth levels of the trees T i T i T_(i)T_{i}Ti. Then let
(3.1) i < d T i := n < ω i < d T i ( n ) (3.1) ⨂ i < d   T i := ⋃ n < ω   ∏ i < d   T i ( n ) {:(3.1)⨂_(i < d)T_(i):=uuu_(n < omega)prod_(i < d)T_(i)(n):}\begin{equation*} \bigotimes_{i<d} T_{i}:=\bigcup_{n<\omega} \prod_{i<d} T_{i}(n) \tag{3.1} \end{equation*}(3.1)⨂i<dTi:=⋃n<ω∏i<dTi(n)
The following is the strong tree version of the Halpern-Läuchli theorem.
Theorem 3.1 (Halpern-Läuchli, [34]). Let d d ddd be a positive integer, T i ω < ω ( i < d ) T i ⊆ ω < ω ( i < d ) T_(i)subeomega^( < omega)(i < d)T_{i} \subseteq \omega^{<\omega}(i<d)Ti⊆ω<ω(i<d) be finitely branching trees with no terminal nodes, and r 2 r ≥ 2 r >= 2r \geq 2r≥2. Given a coloring c : i < d T i r c : ⊗ i < d T i → r c:ox_(i < d)T_(i)rarr rc: \otimes_{i<d} T_{i} \rightarrow rc:⊗i<dTi→r, there is an increasing sequence m n : n < ω m n : n < ω (:m_(n):n < omega:)\left\langle m_{n}: n<\omega\right\rangle⟨mn:n<ω⟩ and strong subtrees S i T i S i ≤ T i S_(i) <= T_(i)S_{i} \leq T_{i}Si≤Ti such that for all i < d i < d i < di<di<d and n < ω , S i ( n ) T i ( m n ) n < ω , S i ( n ) ⊆ T i m n n < omega,S_(i)(n)subeT_(i)(m_(n))n<\omega, S_{i}(n) \subseteq T_{i}\left(m_{n}\right)n<ω,Si(n)⊆Ti(mn), and c c ccc is constant on i < d S i ⊗ i < d S i ox_(i < d)S_(i)\otimes_{i<d} S_{i}⊗i<dSi.
The Halpern-Läuchli theorem has a particularly strong connection with logic. It was isolated by Halpern and Lévy as a key juncture in their work to prove that the Boolean Prime Ideal Theorem is strictly weaker than the Axiom of Choice over the Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms of set theory. Once proved by Halpern and Läuchli, Halpern and Lévy completed their proof in [35].
Harrington (unpublished) devised an innovative proof of the Halpern-Läuchli theorem which used Cohen forcing. The forcing helps find good nodes in the trees T i T i T_(i)T_{i}Ti from which to start building the subtrees S i S i S_(i)S_{i}Si. From then on, the forcing is used ω ω omega\omegaω many times, each time running an unbounded search for finite sets S i ( n ) S i ( n ) S_(i)(n)S_{i}(n)Si(n) which satisfy that level of the HalpernLäuchli theorem. Being finite, each S i ( n ) S i ( n ) S_(i)(n)S_{i}(n)Si(n) is in the ground model. The proof entails neither passing to a generic extension nor any use of Shoenfield's Absoluteness Theorem.
A k k kkk-strong subtree is a strong subtree with k k kkk many levels. The following theorem is proved inductively using Theorem 3.1.
Theorem 3.2 (Milliken, [50]). Let T ω < ω T ⊆ ω < ω T subeomega^( < omega)T \subseteq \omega^{<\omega}T⊆ω<ω be a finitely branching tree with no terminal nodes, k 1 k ≥ 1 k >= 1k \geq 1k≥1, and r 2 r ≥ 2 r >= 2r \geq 2r≥2. Given a coloring of all k k kkk-strong subtrees of T T TTT into r r rrr colors, there is an infinite strong subtree S T S ⊆ T S sube TS \subseteq TS⊆T such that all k k kkk-strong subtrees of S S SSS have the same color.
For more on the Halpern-Läuchli and Milliken theorems, see [21, 46,66]. Now we look at Devlin's proof of the exact big Ramsey degrees of the rationals, as it has bearing on many current approaches to big Ramsey degrees.
The rationals can be represented by the tree 2 < ω 2 < ω 2^( < omega)2^{<\omega}2<ω of binary sequences with the lexicographic order â—ƒ â—ƒ\triangleleftâ—ƒ defined as follows: Given s , t 2 < ω s , t ∈ 2 < ω s,t in2^( < omega)s, t \in 2^{<\omega}s,t∈2<ω with s t s ≠ t s!=ts \neq ts≠t, and letting u u uuu denote s t s ∧ t s^^ts \wedge ts∧t, define s t s â—ƒ t sâ—ƒts \triangleleft tsâ—ƒt to hold if and only if ( | u | < | s | ( | u | < | s | (|u| < |s|(|u|<|s|(|u|<|s| and s ( | u | ) = 0 ) s ( | u | ) = 0 ) s(|u|)=0)s(|u|)=0)s(|u|)=0) or ( | u | < | t | ( | u | < | t | (|u| < |t|(|u|<|t|(|u|<|t| and t ( | u | ) = 1 ) t ( | u | ) = 1 ) t(|u|)=1)t(|u|)=1)t(|u|)=1). Then ( 2 < ω , ) 2 < ω , â—ƒ (2^( < omega),â—ƒ)\left(2^{<\omega}, \triangleleft\right)(2<ω,â—ƒ) is a dense linear order. The following is Definition 6.11 in [66], using the terminology of [62]. For | s | < | t | | s | < | t | |s| < |t||s|<|t||s|<|t|, the number t ( | s | ) t ( | s | ) t(|s|)t(|s|)t(|s|) is called the passing number of t t ttt at s s sss.
Definition 3.3. For A , B ω < ω A , B ⊆ ω < ω A,B subeomega^( < omega)A, B \subseteq \omega^{<\omega}A,B⊆ω<ω, we say that A A AAA and B B BBB are similar if there is a bijection f : cl ( A ) cl ( B ) f : cl ⁡ ( A ) → cl ⁡ ( B ) f:cl(A)rarr cl(B)f: \operatorname{cl}(A) \rightarrow \operatorname{cl}(B)f:cl⁡(A)→cl⁡(B) such that for all s , t cl ( A ) s , t ∈ cl ⁡ ( A ) s,t in cl(A)s, t \in \operatorname{cl}(A)s,t∈cl⁡(A),
(a) (preserves end-extension) s t f ( s ) f ( t ) s ⊑ t ⇔ f ( s ) ⊑ f ( t ) s⊑t<=>f(s)⊑f(t)s \sqsubseteq t \Leftrightarrow f(s) \sqsubseteq f(t)s⊑t⇔f(s)⊑f(t),
(b) (preserves relative lengths) | s | < | t | | f ( s ) | < | f ( t ) | | s | < | t | ⇔ | f ( s ) | < | f ( t ) | |s| < |t|<=>|f(s)| < |f(t)||s|<|t| \Leftrightarrow|f(s)|<|f(t)||s|<|t|⇔|f(s)|<|f(t)|,
(c) s A f ( s ) B s ∈ A ⇔ f ( s ) ∈ B s in A<=>f(s)in Bs \in A \Leftrightarrow f(s) \in Bs∈A⇔f(s)∈B,
(d) (preserves passing numbers) t ( | s | ) = f ( t ) ( | f ( s ) | ) t ( | s | ) = f ( t ) ( | f ( s ) | ) t(|s|)=f(t)(|f(s)|)t(|s|)=f(t)(|f(s)|)t(|s|)=f(t)(|f(s)|) whenever | s | < | t | | s | < | t | |s| < |t||s|<|t||s|<|t|.
Similarity is an equivalence relation; a similarity equivalence class is called a similarity type. We now outline the four main steps to Devlin's characterization of big Ramsey degrees in the rationals. Fix n 1 n ≥ 1 n >= 1n \geq 1n≥1.
I. (Envelopes) Given a subset A 2 < ω A ⊆ 2 < ω A sube2^( < omega)A \subseteq 2^{<\omega}A⊆2<ω of size n n nnn, let k k kkk be the number of levels in cl ( A ) cl ⁡ ( A ) cl(A)\operatorname{cl}(A)cl⁡(A). An envelope of A A AAA is a k k kkk-strong subtree E ( A ) E ( A ) E(A)E(A)E(A) of 2 < ω 2 < ω 2^( < omega)2^{<\omega}2<ω such that A E ( A ) A ⊆ E ( A ) A sube E(A)A \subseteq E(A)A⊆E(A). Given any k k kkk-strong subtree S S SSS of 2 < ω 2 < ω 2^( < omega)2^{<\omega}2<ω, there is exactly one subset B S B ⊆ S B sube SB \subseteq SB⊆S which is similar to A A AAA. This makes it possible to transfer a coloring of the similarity copies of A A AAA in 2 < ω 2 < ω 2^( < omega)2^{<\omega}2<ω to the k k kkk-strong subtrees of 2 < ω 2 < ω 2^( < omega)2^{<\omega}2<ω in a well-defined manner.
II. (Finite Big Ramsey Degrees) Apply Milliken's theorem to obtain an infinite strong subtree T 2 < ω T ⊆ 2 < ω T sube2^( < omega)T \subseteq 2^{<\omega}T⊆2<ω such that every similarity copy of A A AAA in T T TTT has the same color. As there are only finitely many similarity types of sets of size n n nnn, finitely many applications of Milliken's theorem results in an infinite strong subtree S 2 < ω S ⊆ 2 < ω S sube2^( < omega)S \subseteq 2^{<\omega}S⊆2<ω such that the coloring is monochromatic on each similarity type of size n n nnn. This achieves finite big Ramsey degrees.
III. (Diagonal Antichain for Better Upper Bounds) To obtain the exact big Ramsey degrees, Devlin constructed a particular antichain of nodes D 2 < ω D ⊆ 2 < ω D sube2^( < omega)D \subseteq 2^{<\omega}D⊆2<ω such that ( D , ) ( D , â—ƒ ) (D,â—ƒ)(D, \triangleleft)(D,â—ƒ) is a dense linear order and no two nodes in the meet closure of D D DDD have the same length, a property called diagonal. He also required ( ) ( ∗ ) (**)(*)(∗) : All passing numbers at the level of a terminal node or a meet node in cl ( D ) cl ⁡ ( D ) cl(D)\operatorname{cl}(D)cl⁡(D) are 0 , except of course the rightmost extension of the meet node. Diagonal antichains turn out to be essential to characterizing big Ramsey degrees, whereas the additional requirement ( ) ( ∗ ) (**)(*)(∗) is now seen to be nonessential when viewed through the lens of coding trees of 1-types.
IV. (Exact Big Ramsey Degrees) To characterize the big Ramsey degrees, Devlin proved that the similarity type of each subset of D D DDD of size n n nnn persists in every subset D D D ′ ⊆ D D^(')sube DD^{\prime} \subseteq DD′⊆D such that ( D , ) D ′ , ◃ (D^('),◃)\left(D^{\prime}, \triangleleft\right)(D′,◃) is a dense linear order. The similarity types of antichains in D D DDD thus form a canonical partition for linear orders of size n n nnn. By calculating the number of different similarity types of subsets of D D DDD of size n n nnn, Devlin found the big Ramsey degrees for the rationals.
FIGURE 1
Coding tree S ( Q ) S ( Q ) S(Q)\mathbb{S}(\mathbb{Q})S(Q) of 1-types for ( Q , < ) ( Q , < ) (Q, < )(\mathbb{Q},<)(Q,<) and the linear order represented by its coding nodes.
Now we present the characterization of the big Ramsey degrees for the rationals using coding trees of 1-types. Coding trees on 2 < ω 2 < ω 2^( < omega)2^{<\omega}2<ω were first developed in [13] to solve the problem of whether or not the triangle-free homogeneous graph has finite big Ramsey degrees. The presentation given here is from [8], where the notion of coding trees was honed using model-theoretic ideas. We hope that presenting this view here will set the stage for a concrete understanding of big Ramsey degree characterizations discussed in Section 5.
Fix an enumeration { q 0 , q 1 , } q 0 , q 1 , … {q_(0),q_(1),dots}\left\{q_{0}, q_{1}, \ldots\right\}{q0,q1,…} of Q Q Q\mathbb{Q}Q. For n < ω n < ω n < omegan<\omegan<ω, we let Q n Q ↾ n Q↾n\mathbb{Q} \upharpoonright nQ↾n denote the substructure ( { q i : i n } , < ) q i : i ∈ n , < ({q_(i):i in n}, < )\left(\left\{q_{i}: i \in n\right\},<\right)({qi:i∈n},<) of ( Q , < ) ( Q , < ) (Q, < )(\mathbb{Q},<)(Q,<), which we refer to as an initial substructure. One can think of Q n Q ↾ n Q↾n\mathbb{Q} \upharpoonright nQ↾n as a finite approximation in a construction of the rationals. The definition of a coding tree of 1-types in [8] uses complete realizable quantifier-free 1-types over initial substructures. Here, we shall retain the terminology of [8] but (with apologies to model-theorists) will use sets of literals instead, since this will convey the important aspects of the constructions while being more accessible to a general readership. For now, we call a set of formulas s { ( q i < x ) : i n } { ( x < q i ) : i n } s ⊆ q i < x : i ∈ n ∪ x < q i : i ∈ n s sube{(q_(i) < x):i in n}uu{(x < q_(i)):i in n}s \subseteq\left\{\left(q_{i}<x\right): i \in n\right\} \cup\left\{\left(x<q_{i}\right): i \in n\right\}s⊆{(qi<x):i∈n}∪{(x<qi):i∈n} a 1-type over Q n Q ↾ n Q↾n\mathbb{Q} \upharpoonright nQ↾n if (a) for each i < n i < n i < ni<ni<n exactly one of the formulas ( q i < x ) q i < x (q_(i) < x)\left(q_{i}<x\right)(qi<x) or ( x < q i ) x < q i (x < q_(i))\left(x<q_{i}\right)(x<qi) is in s s sss, and (b) there is some (and hence infinitely many) j n j ≥ n j >= nj \geq nj≥n such that q j q j q_(j)q_{j}qj satisfies s s sss, meaning that replacing the variable x x xxx by the rational number q j q j q_(j)q_{j}qj in each formula in s s sss results in a true statement. In other words, s s sss is a 1-type if s s sss prescribes a legitimate way to extend Q n Q ↾ n Q↾n\mathbb{Q} \upharpoonright nQ↾n to a linear order of size n + 1 n + 1 n+1n+1n+1.
Definition 3.4 (Coding Tree of 1-Types for Q , [ 8 ] Q , [ 8 ] Q,[8]\mathbb{Q},[8]Q,[8] ). For a fixed enumeration { q 0 , q 1 , } q 0 , q 1 , … {q_(0),q_(1),dots}\left\{q_{0}, q_{1}, \ldots\right\}{q0,q1,…} of the rationals, the coding tree of 1-types S ( Q ) S ( Q ) S(Q)\mathbb{S}(\mathbb{Q})S(Q) is the set of all 1-types over initial substructures along with a function c : ω S ( Q ) c : ω → S ( Q ) c:omega rarrS(Q)c: \omega \rightarrow \mathbb{S}(\mathbb{Q})c:ω→S(Q) such that c ( n ) c ( n ) c(n)c(n)c(n) is the 1-type of q n q n q_(n)q_{n}qn over Q n Q ↾ n Q↾n\mathbb{Q} \upharpoonright nQ↾n. The treeordering is simply inclusion.
Given s S ( Q ) s ∈ S ( Q ) s inS(Q)s \in \mathbb{S}(\mathbb{Q})s∈S(Q) let | s | = j + 1 | s | = j + 1 |s|=j+1|s|=j+1|s|=j+1 where j j jjj is maximal such that one of ( x < q j ) x < q j (x < q_(j))\left(x<q_{j}\right)(x<qj) or ( q j < x ) q j < x (q_(j) < x)\left(q_{j}<x\right)(qj<x) is in s s sss. For each i < | s | i < | s | i < |s|i<|s|i<|s|, we let s ( i ) s ( i ) s(i)s(i)s(i) denote the formula from among ( x < q i ) x < q i (x < q_(i))\left(x<q_{i}\right)(x<qi) or ( q i < x ) q i < x (q_(i) < x)\left(q_{i}<x\right)(qi<x) which is in s s sss. The coding nodes c ( n ) c ( n ) c(n)c(n)c(n), in practice usually denoted by c n c n c_(n)c_{n}cn, are special distinguished nodes representing the rational numbers; c n c n c_(n)c_{n}cn represents the rational q n q n q_(n)q_{n}qn, because c n c n c_(n)c_{n}cn is the 1-type with parameters from among { q i : i n } q i : i ∈ n {q_(i):i in n}\left\{q_{i}: i \in n\right\}{qi:i∈n} that q n q n q_(n)q_{n}qn satisfies. Notice that this tree S ( Q ) S ( Q ) S(Q)\mathbb{S}(\mathbb{Q})S(Q) has at most one splitting node per level. The effect is that any antichain of coding nodes in S ( Q S ( Q S(Q\mathbb{S}(\mathbb{Q}S(Q ) will automatically be diagonal. (See Figure 1, reproduced from [8].)
Fix an ordering < lex < lex  < _("lex ")<_{\text {lex }}<lex  on the literals: For i < j i < j i < ji<ji<j, define ( x < q i ) < lex ( q i < x ) < lex x < q i < lex  q i < x < lex  (x < q_(i)) < _("lex ")(q_(i) < x) < _("lex ")\left(x<q_{i}\right)<_{\text {lex }}\left(q_{i}<x\right)<_{\text {lex }}(x<qi)<lex (qi<x)<lex  ( x < q j ) x < q j (x < q_(j))\left(x<q_{j}\right)(x<qj). Extend < lex < lex  < _("lex ")<_{\text {lex }}<lex  to S ( Q ) S ( Q ) S(Q)\mathbb{S}(\mathbb{Q})S(Q) by declaring for s , t S ( Q ) , s < lex t s , t ∈ S ( Q ) , s < lex  t s,t inS(Q),s < _("lex ")ts, t \in \mathbb{S}(\mathbb{Q}), s<_{\text {lex }} ts,t∈S(Q),s<lex t if and only if s s sss and t t ttt are incomparable and for i = | s t | , s ( i ) < lex t ( i ) i = | s ∧ t | , s ( i ) < lex  t ( i ) i=|s^^t|,s(i) < _("lex ")t(i)i=|s \wedge t|, s(i)<_{\text {lex }} t(i)i=|s∧t|,s(i)<lex t(i).
Definition 3.5. For A , B A , B A,BA, BA,B sets of coding nodes in S ( Q ) S ( Q ) S(Q)\mathbb{S}(\mathbb{Q})S(Q), we say that A A AAA and B B BBB are similar if there is a bijection f : cl ( A ) cl ( B ) f : cl ⁡ ( A ) → cl ⁡ ( B ) f:cl(A)rarr cl(B)f: \operatorname{cl}(A) \rightarrow \operatorname{cl}(B)f:cl⁡(A)→cl⁡(B) such that for all s , t cl ( A ) , f s , t ∈ cl ⁡ ( A ) , f s,t in cl(A),fs, t \in \operatorname{cl}(A), fs,t∈cl⁡(A),f satisfies (a)-(c) of Definition 3.3 and (d') s < lex t f ( s ) < lex f ( t ) s < lex t ⟺ f ( s ) < lex f ( t ) s < _(lex)t Longleftrightarrow f(s) < _(lex)f(t)s<_{\operatorname{lex}} t \Longleftrightarrow f(s)<_{\operatorname{lex}} f(t)s<lext⟺f(s)<lexf(t),
When B B BBB is similar to A A AAA, we call B B BBB a similarity copy of A A AAA. Condition (d) in Definition 3.3 implies that the lexicographic order on 2 < ω 2 < ω 2^( < omega)2^{<\omega}2<ω is preserved, and, moreover, that passing numbers at meet nodes and at terminal nodes are preserved. In ( d d ′ d^(')\mathrm{d}^{\prime}d′ ) we only need to preserve lexicographic order.
Extending Harrington's method, forcing is utilized to obtain a pigeonhole principle for coding trees of 1-types in the vein of the Halpern-Läuchli Theorem 3.1, but for colorings of finite sets of coding nodes, rather than antichains. Via an inductive argument using this pigeonhole principle, we obtain the following Ramsey theorem on coding trees.
Theorem 3.6 ([8]). Let S ( Q ) S ( Q ) S(Q)\mathbb{S}(\mathbb{Q})S(Q) be a coding tree of 1-types for the rationals. Given a finite set A of coding nodes in S ( Q ) S ( Q ) S(Q)\mathbb{S}(\mathbb{Q})S(Q) and a finite coloring of all similarity copies of A A AAA in S ( Q ) S ( Q ) S(Q)\mathbb{S}(\mathbb{Q})S(Q), there is a coding subtree S S SSS of S ( Q ) S ( Q ) S(Q)\mathbb{S}(\mathbb{Q})S(Q) similar to S ( Q ) S ( Q ) S(Q)\mathbb{S}(\mathbb{Q})S(Q) such that all similarity copies of A A AAA in S S SSS have the same color.
Fix n 1 n ≥ 1 n >= 1n \geq 1n≥1. By applying Theorem 3.6 once for each similarity type of coding nodes of size n n nnn, we prove finite big Ramsey degrees, accomplishing step II while bypassing step I in Devlin's proof. Upon taking any antichain D D DDD of coding nodes in S ( Q ) S ( Q ) S(Q)\mathbb{S}(\mathbb{Q})S(Q) representing a dense linear order, we obtain better upper bounds which are then proved to be exact, accomplishing steps III and IV.
Big Ramsey degrees of the rationals. In [8], we show that given n 1 n ≥ 1 n >= 1n \geq 1n≥1, the big Ramsey degree T ( n ) T ( n ) T(n)T(n)T(n) for linear orders of size n n nnn in the rationals is the number of similarity types of antichains of coding nodes in S ( Q ) S ( Q ) S(Q)\mathbb{S}(\mathbb{Q})S(Q).
What then is the big Ramsey degree T ( n ) T ( n ) T(n)T(n)T(n) in the rationals? It is the number of different ways to order the indexes of an increasing sequence of rationals { q i 0 < q i 1 < < q i n 1 } q i 0 < q i 1 < ⋯ < q i n − 1 {q_(i_(0)) < q_(i_(1)) < cdots < q_(i_(n-1))}\left\{q_{i_{0}}<q_{i_{1}}<\cdots<q_{i_{n-1}}\right\}{qi0<qi1<⋯<qin−1} with incomparable 1-types along with the number of ways to order the first differences of their 1-types over initial substructures of Q Q Q\mathbb{Q}Q. The first difference between the 1-types of the rationals q i q i q_(i)q_{i}qi and q j q j q_(j)q_{j}qj occurs at the least k k kkk such that q i < q k q i < q k q_(i) < q_(k)q_{i}<q_{k}qi<qk and q k < q j q k < q j q_(k) < q_(j)q_{k}<q_{j}qk<qj, or vice versa. This means that q i q i q_(i)q_{i}qi and q j q j q_(j)q_{j}qj are in the same interval of Q k Q ↾ k Q↾k\mathbb{Q} \upharpoonright kQ↾k but in different intervals of
Q ( k + 1 ) Q ↾ ( k + 1 ) Q↾(k+1)\mathbb{Q} \upharpoonright(k+1)Q↾(k+1). Concretely, T ( n ) T ( n ) T(n)T(n)T(n) is the number of < < <<<-isomorphism classes of ( 2 n 1 ) ( 2 n − 1 ) (2n-1)(2 n-1)(2n−1)-tuples of integers ( i 0 , , i n 1 , k 0 , , k n 2 ) i 0 , … , i n − 1 , k 0 , … , k n − 2 (i_(0),dots,i_(n-1),k_(0),dots,k_(n-2))\left(i_{0}, \ldots, i_{n-1}, k_{0}, \ldots, k_{n-2}\right)(i0,…,in−1,k0,…,kn−2) with the following properties: { q i 0 < q i 1 < < q i n 1 } q i 0 < q i 1 < ⋯ < q i n − 1 {q_(i_(0)) < q_(i_(1)) < cdots < q_(i_(n-1))}\left\{q_{i_{0}}<q_{i_{1}}<\cdots<q_{i_{n-1}}\right\}{qi0<qi1<⋯<qin−1} is a set of rationals in increasing order, and for each j < n 1 , q i j < q k j < q i j + 1 j < n − 1 , q i j < q k j < q i j + 1 j < n-1,q_(i_(j)) < q_(k_(j)) < q_(i_(j+1))j<n-1, q_{i_{j}}<q_{k_{j}}<q_{i_{j+1}}j<n−1,qij<qkj<qij+1 where k j < min ( i j , i j + 1 ) k j < min i j , i j + 1 k_(j) < min(i_(j),i_(j+1))k_{j}<\min \left(i_{j}, i_{j+1}\right)kj<min(ij,ij+1) and is the least integer satisfying this relation.

4. HISTORICAL HIGHLIGHTS, RECENT RESULTS, AND METHODS

We now highlight some historical achievements, and present recent results and the main ideas of their methods. For an overview of results up to the year 2000, see the appendix by Sauer in Fraïssé's book [32]; for an overview up to the year 2013, see Nguyen Van Thé's habilitation thesis [54]. Those interested in open problems intended for undergraduate research may enjoy [18].
The Rado graph is the second example of a homogeneous structure with nontrivial big Ramsey degrees which has been fully understood in terms of its partition theory. The Rado graph R R R\mathbf{R}R is up to isomorphism the homogeneous graph on countably many vertices which is universal for all countable graphs. It was known to Erdős and other Hungarian mathematicians in the 1960s, though possibly earlier, that the Rado graph is indivisible. In their 1975 paper [30], Erdős, Hajnal, and Pósa constructed a coloring of the edges in R R R\mathbf{R}R into two colors such that both colors persist in each subcopy of R R R\mathbf{R}R. Pouzet and Sauer later showed in [57] that the big Ramsey degree for edge colorings in the Rado graph is exactly two. The complete characterization of the big Ramsey degrees of the Rado graph was achieved in a pair of papers by Sauer [62] and by Laflamme, Sauer, and Vuksanovic [44], both appearing in 2006, and the degrees were calculated by Larson in [45]. The two papers [62] and [44] in fact characterized exact big Ramsey degrees for all unrestricted homogeneous structures with finitely many binary relations, including the homogeneous digraph, homogeneous tournament, and random graph with finitely many edges of different colors. Milliken's theorem was used to prove existence of upper bounds, alluding to a deep connection between big Ramsey degrees and Ramsey theorems for trees. These results are discussed in Section 5.1.
In [43], for each n 2 n ≥ 2 n >= 2n \geq 2n≥2, Laflamme, Nguyen Van Thé, and Sauer calculated the big Ramsey degrees of Q n Q n Q_(n)\mathbb{Q}_{n}Qn, the rationals with an equivalence relation with n n nnn many equivalence classes each of which is dense in Q Q Q\mathbb{Q}Q. This hinged on proving a "colored version" of Milliken's theorem, where the levels of the trees are colored, to achieve upper bounds. Applying their result for Q 2 Q 2 Q_(2)\mathbb{Q}_{2}Q2, they calculated the big Ramsey degrees of the dense local order, denoted S ( 2 ) S ( 2 ) S(2)\mathbf{S}(2)S(2). In his P h D P h D PhD\mathrm{PhD}PhD thesis [38], Howe proved finite big Ramsey degrees for the generic bipartite graph and the Fraïssé limit of the class of finite linear orders with a convex equivalence relation.
A robust and streamlined approach applicable to a large class of homogeneous structures, and recovering the previously mentioned examples (except for S ( 2 ) S ( 2 ) S(2)\mathbf{S}(2)S(2) ), was developed by Coulson, Patel, and the author in [8], building on ideas in [13] and [12]. In [8], it was shown that homogeneous structures with relations of arity at most two satisfying a strengthening of SAP, called SDAP + + ^(+){ }^{+}+, have big Ramsey structures which are characterized in a simple manner, and therefore their big Ramsey degrees are easy to compute. The proof proceeds via a Ramsey theorem for colorings of finite antichains of coding nodes on diagonal coding
trees of 1-types. This approach bypasses any need for envelopes, the theorem producing of its own accord exact upper bounds. Moreover, the Halpern-Läuchli-style theorem, which is proved via forcing arguments to achieve a ZFC result and used as the pigeonhole principle in the Ramsey theorem, immediately yields indivisibility for all homogeneous structures satisfying S D A P + S D A P + SDAP^(+)\mathrm{SDAP}^{+}SDAP+, with relations of any arity. These results and their methods are discussed in Section 5.1.
The k k kkk-clique-free homogeneous graphs, denoted G k , k 3 G k , k ≥ 3 G_(k),k >= 3\mathbf{G}_{k}, k \geq 3Gk,k≥3, were constructed by Henson in his 1971 paper [36], where he proved these graphs to be weakly indivisible. In their 1986 paper [42], Komjáth and Rödl proved that G 3 G 3 G_(3)\mathbf{G}_{3}G3 is indivisible, answering a question of Hajnal. A few years later, El-Zahar and Sauer gave a systematic approach in [24], proving that for each k 3 k ≥ 3 k >= 3k \geq 3k≥3, the k k kkk-clique-free homogeneous graph G k G k G_(k)\mathbf{G}_{k}Gk is indivisible. In 1998, Sauer proved in [60] that the big Ramsey degree for edges in G 3 G 3 G_(3)\mathbf{G}_{3}G3 is two. Further progress on big Ramsey degrees of G 3 G 3 G_(3)\mathbf{G}_{3}G3, however, needed a new approach. This was achieved by the author in [13], where the method of coding trees was first developed. In [12], the author extended this work, proving that G k G k G_(k)\mathbf{G}_{k}Gk has finite big Ramsey degrees, for each k 3 k ≥ 3 k >= 3k \geq 3k≥3. In [13] and [12], the author proved a Ramsey theorem for colorings of finite antichains of coding nodes in diagonal coding trees. These diagonal coding trees were designed to achieve very good upper bounds and directly recover the indivisibility results in [42] and [24], discovering much of the essential structure involved in characterizing their exact big Ramsey degrees. (Millikenstyle theorems on nondiagonal coding trees which fully branch at each level do not directly prove indivisibility results, and produce looser upper bounds.) In particular, after a minor modification, the trees in [13] produced exact big Ramsey degrees for G 3 G 3 G_(3)\mathbf{G}_{3}G3, as shown in [14]. Around the same time, exact big Ramsey degrees for G 3 G 3 G_(3)\mathbf{G}_{3}G3 were independently proved by Balko, Chodounský, Hubička, Konečný, Vena, and Zucker, instigating the collaboration of this group with the author.
Given a finite relational language L L L\mathscr{L}L, an L L L\mathscr{L}L-structure A A A\mathbf{A}A is called irreducible if each pair of its vertices are in some relation of A. Given a set F F F\mathscr{F}F of finite irreducible L L L\mathscr{L}L-structures, Forb ( F ) Forb ⁡ ( F ) Forb(F)\operatorname{Forb}(\mathscr{F})Forb⁡(F) denotes the class of all finite L L L\mathscr{L}L-structures into which no member of F F F\mathscr{F}F embeds. Fraïssé classes of the form Forb ( F ) Forb ⁡ ( F ) Forb(F)\operatorname{Forb}(\mathscr{F})Forb⁡(F) are exactly those with free amalgamation. Zucker in [71] proved that for any Fraïssé class of the form Forb ( F ) Forb ⁡ ( F ) Forb(F)\operatorname{Forb}(\mathcal{F})Forb⁡(F), where F F F\mathscr{F}F is a finite set of irreducible substructures and all relations have arity at most two, its Fraïssé limit has finite big Ramsey degrees. His proof used coding trees which branch at each level and a forcing argument to obtain a Halpern-Läuchli-style theorem which formed the pigeonhole principle for a Milliken-esque theorem for these coding trees. An important advance in this paper is Zucker's abstract, top-down approach, providing simplified and relatively short proof of finite big Ramsey degrees for this large class of homogeneous structures. On the other hand, his Milliken-style theorem does not directly recover indivisibility (more work is needed afterwards to show this), and the upper bounds in [71] did not recover those in [13] or [12] for the homogeneous k k kkk-clique-free graphs. However, by further work done in [6], by Balko, Chodounský, Hubička, Konečný, Vena, Zucker, and the author, indivisibility results are proved and exact big Ramsey degrees are characterized. Thus, the picture for FAP classes
with finitely many relations of arity at most two is now clear. These results will be discussed in Section 5.2.
Next, we look at homogeneous structures with relations of arity at most two which do not satisfy S D A P + S D A P + SDAP^(+)\mathrm{SDAP}^{+}SDAP+and whose ages have strong (but not free) amalgamation. Nguyen Van Thé made a significant contribution in his 2008 paper [53], in which he proved that the ultrametric Urysohn space Q S Q S Q_(S)\mathbf{Q}_{S}QS has finite big Ramsey degrees if and only if S S SSS is a finite distance set. In the case that S S SSS is finite, he calculated the big Ramsey degrees. Moreover, he showed that for an infinite countable distance set S , Q S S , Q S S,Q_(S)S, \mathbf{Q}_{S}S,QS is indivisible if and only if S S SSS with the reverse order as a subset of the reals is well ordered. His proof used infinitely wide trees of finite height and his pigeonhole principle was actually Ramsey's theorem. All countable Urysohn metric spaces with finite distance set were proved to be indivisible by Sauer in [63], completing the work that was initiated in [55] in relation to the celebrated distortion problem from Banach space theory and its solution by Odell and Schlumprecht in [56].
MaÅ¡ulović instigated the use of category theory to prove transport principles showing that finite big Ramsey degrees can be inferred from one category to another. After proving a general transport principle in [47], he applied it to prove finite big Ramsey degrees for many universal structures and also for homogenous metric spaces with finite distance sets with a certain property which he calls compact with one nontrivial block. MaÅ¡ulović proved in [48] that in categories satisfying certain mild conditions, small Ramsey degrees are minima of big Ramsey degrees. In the paper [49] with Å obot (not using category theory), finite big Ramsey degrees for finite chains in countable ordinals were shown to exist if and only if the ordinal is smaller than ω ω ω ω omega^(omega)\omega^{\omega}ωω. Dasilva Barbosa in [9] proved that categorical precompact expansions grant upper bounds for big and small Ramsey degrees. As an application, he calculated the big Ramsey degrees of the circular directed graphs S ( n ) S ( n ) S(n)\mathbf{S}(n)S(n) for all n 2 n ≥ 2 n >= 2n \geq 2n≥2, extending the work in [43] for S ( 2 ) S ( 2 ) S(2)\mathbf{S}(2)S(2).
Hubička recently developed a new method to handle forbidden substructures utilizing topological Ramsey spaces of parameter words due to Carlson and Simpson [7]. In [39], he applied his method to prove that the homogeneous partial order and Urysohn S S SSS-metric spaces (where S S SSS is a set of nonnegative reals with 0 S 0 ∈ S 0in S0 \in S0∈S satisfying the 4 -values condition) have finite big Ramsey degrees. He also showed that this method is quite broad and can be applied to yield a short proof of finite big Ramsey degrees in G 3 G 3 G_(3)\mathbf{G}_{3}G3. Beginning with the upper bounds in [39], the exact big Ramsey degrees of the generic partial order have been characterized in [5] by Balko, Chodounský, Hubička, Konečný, Vena, Zucker, and the author. Also utilizing techniques from [39], Balko, Chodounský, Hubička, Konečný, NeÅ¡etÅ™il, and Vena in [2] have found a condition which guarantees finite big Ramsey degrees for binary relational homogeneous structures with strong amalgamation. Examples of structures satisfying this condition include the S S SSS-Urysohn space for finite distance sets S , Λ S , Λ S,LambdaS, \LambdaS,Λ-ultrametric spaces for a finite distributive lattice, and metric spaces associated to metrically homogeneous graphs of a finite diameter from Cherlin's list with no Henson constraints.
For homogeneous structures with free amalgamation, a recent breakthrough of Sauer proving indivisibility in [64] culminates a long line of work in [25-28, 61]. Complementary work appeared in [ 8 ] [ 8 ] [8][8][8], where it was proved that for finitely many relations of any
arity, S D A P + S D A P + SDAP^(+)\mathrm{SDAP}^{+}SDAP+implies indivisibility. On the other hand, big Ramsey degrees of structures with relations of arity greater than two has only recently seen progress, beginning with [3] and [4], where Balko, Chodounský, Hubička, Konečný, and Vena found upper bounds for the big Ramsey degrees of the generic 3-hypergraph. Work in this area is ongoing and promising.

5. EXACT BIG RAMSEY DEGREES

This section presents characterizations of exact big Ramsey degrees known at the time of writing. These hold for homogeneous structures with finitely many relations of arity at most two. Two general classes have been completely understood: Structures satisfying a certain strengthening of strong amalgamation called SDAP + + ^(+){ }^{+}+(Section 5.1) and structures whose ages have free amalgamation (Section 5.2). Lying outside of these two classes, the generic partial order has been completely understood in terms of exact big Ramsey degrees and will be briefly discussed at the end of Section 5.2. These characterizations all involve the notion of a diagonal antichain, in various trees or spaces of parameter words, representing a copy of an enumerated homogeneous structure. Here, we present these notions in terms of structures, as they are independent of the representation.
Let K K K\mathbf{K}K be an enumerated homogeneous structure with universe { v n : n < ω } v n : n < ω {v_(n):n < omega}\left\{v_{n}: n<\omega\right\}{vn:n<ω}. Let A K A ≤ K A <= K\mathbf{A} \leq \mathbf{K}A≤K be a finite substructure of K K K\mathbf{K}K, and suppose that the universe of A A A\mathbf{A}A is { v i : i I } v i : i ∈ I {v_(i):i in I}\left\{v_{i}: i \in I\right\}{vi:i∈I} for some finite set I ω I ⊆ ω I sube omegaI \subseteq \omegaI⊆ω. We say that A A A\mathbf{A}A is an antichain if for each pair i < j i < j i < ji<ji<j in I I III there is a k ( i , j ) < i k ( i , j ) < i k(i,j) < ik(i, j)<ik(i,j)<i such that the set { k ( i , j ) : i , j I { k ( i , j ) : i , j ∈ I {k(i,j):i,j in I\{k(i, j): i, j \in I{k(i,j):i,j∈I and i < j } i < j } i < j}i<j\}i<j} is disjoint from I I III, and
(5.1) K ( { v : < k ( i , j ) } { v i } ) K ( { v : < k ( i , j ) } { v j } ) (5.2) K ( { v : k ( i , j ) } { v i } ) K ( { v : k ( i , j ) } { v j } ) (5.1) K ↾ v ℓ : ℓ < k ( i , j ) ∪ v i ≅ K ↾ v ℓ : ℓ < k ( i , j ) ∪ v j (5.2) K ↾ v ℓ : ℓ ≤ k ( i , j ) ∪ v i ⊉ K ↾ v ℓ : ℓ ≤ k ( i , j ) ∪ v j {:[(5.1)K↾({v_(ℓ):ℓ < k(i,j)}uu{v_(i)})~=K↾({v_(ℓ):ℓ < k(i,j)}uu{v_(j)})],[(5.2)K↾({v_(ℓ):ℓ <= k(i,j)}uu{v_(i)})⊉K↾({v_(ℓ):ℓ <= k(i,j)}uu{v_(j)})]:}\begin{align*} & \mathbf{K} \upharpoonright\left(\left\{v_{\ell}: \ell<k(i, j)\right\} \cup\left\{v_{i}\right\}\right) \cong \mathbf{K} \upharpoonright\left(\left\{v_{\ell}: \ell<k(i, j)\right\} \cup\left\{v_{j}\right\}\right) \tag{5.1}\\ & \mathbf{K} \upharpoonright\left(\left\{v_{\ell}: \ell \leq k(i, j)\right\} \cup\left\{v_{i}\right\}\right) \nsupseteq \mathbf{K} \upharpoonright\left(\left\{v_{\ell}: \ell \leq k(i, j)\right\} \cup\left\{v_{j}\right\}\right) \tag{5.2} \end{align*}(5.1)K↾({vℓ:ℓ<k(i,j)}∪{vi})≅K↾({vℓ:ℓ<k(i,j)}∪{vj})(5.2)K↾({vℓ:ℓ≤k(i,j)}∪{vi})⊉K↾({vℓ:ℓ≤k(i,j)}∪{vj})
An antichain A A A\mathbf{A}A is called diagonal if { k ( i , j ) : i < j m } { k ( i , j ) : i < j ≤ m } {k(i,j):i < j <= m}\{k(i, j): i<j \leq m\}{k(i,j):i<j≤m} has cardinality m m mmm. We call k ( i , j ) k ( i , j ) k(i,j)k(i, j)k(i,j) the meet level of the pair v i , v j v i , v j v_(i),v_(j)v_{i}, v_{j}vi,vj.
The notion of diagonal antichain is central to all characterizations of big Ramsey degrees obtained so far. It seems likely that antichains will be essential to all characterizations of big Ramsey degrees. However, preliminary work shows that some homogeneous binary relational structures, such as two or more independent linear orders, will have characterizations in their trees of 1-types involving antichains which are not diagonal, but could still be characterized via products of finitely many diagonal antichains.
The indexing of the relation symbols { R : < L } R ℓ : ℓ < L {R_(ℓ):ℓ < L}\left\{R_{\ell}: \ell<L\right\}{Rℓ:ℓ<L} in the language L L L\mathscr{L}L of K K K\mathbf{K}K induces a lexicographic ordering on trees representing relational structures. Here, we present this idea directly on the structures. For m n m ≠ n m!=nm \neq nm≠n, we declare v m < lex v n v m < lex  v n v_(m) < _("lex ")v_(n)v_{m}<_{\text {lex }} v_{n}vm<lex vn if and only if { v m , v n } v m , v n {v_(m),v_(n)}\left\{v_{m}, v_{n}\right\}{vm,vn} is an antichain and, letting k k kkk be the meet level of the pair v m , v n v m , v n v_(m),v_(n)v_{m}, v_{n}vm,vn, and letting ℓ ℓ\ellℓ denote the least index in L L LLL such that v m v m v_(m)v_{m}vm and v n v n v_(n)v_{n}vn disagree on their R R ℓ R_(ℓ)R_{\ell}Rℓ-relationship with v k v k v_(k)v_{k}vk, either R ( v k , v n ) R ℓ v k , v n R_(ℓ)(v_(k),v_(n))R_{\ell}\left(v_{k}, v_{n}\right)Rℓ(vk,vn) holds while R ( v k , v m ) R ℓ v k , v m R_(ℓ)(v_(k),v_(m))R_{\ell}\left(v_{k}, v_{m}\right)Rℓ(vk,vm) does not, or else R ( v n , v k ) R ℓ v n , v k R_(ℓ)(v_(n),v_(k))R_{\ell}\left(v_{n}, v_{k}\right)Rℓ(vn,vk) holds while R ( v m , v k ) R ℓ v m , v k R_(ℓ)(v_(m),v_(k))R_{\ell}\left(v_{m}, v_{k}\right)Rℓ(vm,vk) does not.
Two diagonal antichains A A A\mathbf{A}A and B B B\mathbf{B}B in an enumerated homogeneous structure K K K\mathbf{K}K are similar if they have the same number of vertices, and the increasing bijection from the universe A = { v m i : i p } A = v m i : i ≤ p A={v_(m_(i)):i <= p}A=\left\{v_{m_{i}}: i \leq p\right\}A={vmi:i≤p} of A A A\mathbf{A}A to the universe B = { v n i : i p } B = v n i : i ≤ p B={v_(n_(i)):i <= p}B=\left\{v_{n_{i}}: i \leq p\right\}B={vni:i≤p} of B B B\mathbf{B}B induces an isomorphism
from A A A\mathbf{A}A to B B B\mathbf{B}B which preserves < lex < lex  < _("lex ")<_{\text {lex }}<lex  and induces a map on the meet levels which, for each i < j p i < j ≤ p i < j <= pi<j \leq pi<j≤p, sends k ( m i , m j ) k m i , m j k(m_(i),m_(j))k\left(m_{i}, m_{j}\right)k(mi,mj) to k ( n i , n j ) k n i , n j k(n_(i),n_(j))k\left(n_{i}, n_{j}\right)k(ni,nj). This implies that the map sending the coding node c m i c m i c_(m_(i))c_{m_{i}}cmi to c n i ( i p ) c n i ( i ≤ p ) c_(n_(i))(i <= p)c_{n_{i}}(i \leq p)cni(i≤p) in the coding tree of 1-types S ( K ) S ( K ) S(K)\mathbb{S}(\mathbf{K})S(K) (see Definition 3.4) induces a map on the meet-closures of { c m i : i p } c m i : i ≤ p {c_(m_(i)):i <= p}\left\{c_{m_{i}}: i \leq p\right\}{cmi:i≤p} and { c n i : i p } c n i : i ≤ p {c_(n_(i)):i <= p}\left\{c_{n_{i}}: i \leq p\right\}{cni:i≤p} satisfying Definition 3.5.
Similarity is an equivalence relation, and an equivalence class is called a similarity type. We say that K K K\mathbf{K}K has simply characterized big Ramsey degrees if for A Age ( K ) A ∈ Age ⁡ ( K ) Ain Age(K)\mathbf{A} \in \operatorname{Age}(\mathbf{K})A∈Age⁡(K), the big Ramsey degree of A A A\mathbf{A}A is exactly the number of similarity types of diagonal antichains representing A. In the next subsection, we will see many homogeneous structures with simply characterized big Ramsey degrees.

5.1. Exact big Ramsey degrees with a simple characterization

The decades-long investigation of the big Ramsey degrees of the Rado graph culminated in the two papers [62] and [44]. These two papers moreover characterized the big Ramsey degrees for all unrestricted binary relational homogeneous structures. Unrestricted binary relational structures are determined by a finite language L = { R 0 , , R l 1 } L = R 0 , … , R l − 1 L={R_(0),dots,R_(l-1)}\mathscr{L}=\left\{R_{0}, \ldots, R_{l-1}\right\}L={R0,…,Rl−1} of binary relation symbols and a nonempty constraint set C C C\mathscr{C}C of L L L\mathscr{L}L-structures with universe { 0 , 1 } { 0 , 1 } {0,1}\{0,1\}{0,1} with the following property: If A A A\mathbf{A}A and B B B\mathbf{B}B are two isomorphic L L L\mathscr{L}L-structures with universe { 0 , 1 } { 0 , 1 } {0,1}\{0,1\}{0,1}, then either both are in C C C\mathscr{C}C or neither is in C C C\mathscr{C}C. We let H C H C HC\mathbf{H} \mathcal{C}HC denote the homogeneous structure such that each of its substructures with universe of size two is isomorphic to one of the structures in ⨀ ⨀\bigodot⨀. Examples of unrestricted binary relational homogeneous structures include the Rado graph, the generic directed graph, the generic tournament, and random graphs with more than one edge relation.
Given a universal constraint set C C C\mathcal{C}C, letting k =∣ C k =∣ C k=∣Ck=\mid \mathscr{C}k=∣C, Sauer showed in [62] how to form a structure, call it U C U C U_(C)\mathbf{U}_{\mathscr{C}}UC, with nodes in the tree k < ω k < ω k^( < omega)k^{<\omega}k<ω as vertices, such that H C H C H_(C)\mathbf{H}_{\mathscr{C}}HC embeds into U C U C U_(C)\mathbf{U}_{\mathscr{C}}UC. Fix a bijection λ : C k λ : C → k lambda:Crarr k\lambda: \mathscr{C} \rightarrow kλ:C→k. Given two nodes s , t k < ω s , t ∈ k < ω s,t ink^( < omega)s, t \in k^{<\omega}s,t∈k<ω with | s | < | t | | s | < | t | |s| < |t||s|<|t||s|<|t|, declare that t ( | s | ) = j t ( | s | ) = j t(|s|)=jt(|s|)=jt(|s|)=j if and only if the induced substructure of U C U C U_(C)\mathbf{U}_{\mathcal{C}}UC on universe { s , t } { s , t } {s,t}\{s, t\}{s,t} is isomorphic to the structure λ ( j ) λ ( j ) lambda(j)\lambda(j)λ(j) in C C C\mathcal{C}C, where the isomorphism sends s s sss to 0 and t t ttt to 1 . For two nodes s , t k < ω s , t ∈ k < ω s,t ink^( < omega)s, t \in k^{<\omega}s,t∈k<ω of the same length, declare that for s s sss lexicographically less than t t ttt, the induced substructure of U U ⨀ U_(⨀)\mathbf{U}_{\bigodot}U⨀

to 0 and t t ttt to 1 . As a special case, a universal graph is constructed as follows: Let each node in 2 < ω 2 < ω 2^( < omega)2^{<\omega}2<ω be a vertex. Define an edge relation E E EEE between vertices by declaring that, for s t s ≠ t s!=ts \neq ts≠t in 2 < ω , s E t 2 < ω , s E t 2^( < omega),sEt2^{<\omega}, s E t2<ω,sEt if and only if | s | | t | | s | ≠ | t | |s|!=|t||s| \neq|t||s|≠|t| and ( | s | < | t | t ( | s | ) = 1 ) ( | s | < | t | ⟹ t ( | s | ) = 1 ) (|s| < |t|Longrightarrow t(|s|)=1)(|s|<|t| \Longrightarrow t(|s|)=1)(|s|<|t|⟹t(|s|)=1). Then ( 2 < ω , E ) 2 < ω , E (2^( < omega),E)\left(2^{<\omega}, E\right)(2<ω,E) is universal for all countable graphs. In particular, the Rado graph embeds into the graph ( 2 < ω , E ) 2 < ω , E (2^( < omega),E)\left(2^{<\omega}, E\right)(2<ω,E), and vice versa.
In trees of the form k < ω k < ω k^( < omega)k^{<\omega}k<ω, the notion of similarity is exactly that of Definition 3.3, and steps I-IV discussed in Section 3 outline the proof of exact big Ramsey degrees contained in the pair of papers [62] and [44]. Milliken's theorem was used to prove existence of upper bounds via strong tree envelopes. For step III, Sauer constructed in [62] a diagonal antichain D k < ω D ⊆ k < ω D subek^( < omega)D \subseteq k^{<\omega}D⊆k<ω such that the substructure of U C U C U_(C)\mathbf{U}_{\mathcal{C}}UC restricted to universe D D DDD is isomorphic to H e H e He\mathbf{H} \boldsymbol{e}He, achieving upper bounds shown to be exact in [44], finishing step IV. The big Ramsey degree of a finite substructure A A A\mathbf{A}A of H C H C H_(C)\mathbf{H}_{\mathcal{C}}HC is exactly the number of distinct similarity types of subsets of D D DDD whose induced substructure in U C U C U_(C)\mathbf{U}_{\mathcal{C}}UC is isomorphic to A A A\mathbf{A}A.
The work in [62] and [44] greatly influenced the author's development of coding trees and their Ramsey theorems in [13] and [12] (discussed in Section 5.2). Those papers along with a suggestion of Sauer to the author during the Banff 2018 Workshop on Unifying Themes in Ramsey Theory, to try moving the forcing arguments in those papers from coding trees to structures, informed the approach taken in the paper [8], which is now discussed.
Let K K K\mathbf{K}K be an enumerated Fraïssé structure with vertices { v n : n < ω } v n : n < ω {v_(n):n < omega}\left\{v_{n}: n<\omega\right\}{vn:n<ω}. For n < ω n < ω n < omegan<\omegan<ω, we let K n K n K_(n)\mathbf{K}_{n}Kn denote K { v i : i < n } K ↾ v i : i < n K↾{v_(i):i < n}\mathbf{K} \upharpoonright\left\{v_{i}: i<n\right\}K↾{vi:i<n}, the induced substructure of K K K\mathbf{K}K on its first n n nnn vertices, and call K n K n K_(n)\mathbf{K}_{n}Kn an initial substructure of K K K\mathbf{K}K. We write 1-type to mean complete realizable quantifier-free 1-type over K n K n K_(n)\mathbf{K}_{n}Kn for some n n nnn.
Definition 5.1 (Coding Tree of 1-Types, [8]). The coding tree of 1-types S ( K ) S ( K ) S(K)\mathbb{S}(\mathbf{K})S(K) for an enumerated Fraïssé structure K K K\mathbf{K}K is the set of all 1-types over initial substructures of K K K\mathbf{K}K along with a function c : ω S ( K ) c : ω → S ( K ) c:omega rarrS(K)c: \omega \rightarrow \mathbb{S}(\mathbf{K})c:ω→S(K) such that c ( n ) c ( n ) c(n)c(n)c(n) is the 1-type of v n v n v_(n)v_{n}vn over K n K n K_(n)\mathbf{K}_{n}Kn. The tree-ordering is simply inclusion.
A substructure A A A\mathbf{A}A of K K K\mathbf{K}K with universe A = { v n 0 , , v n m } A = v n 0 , … , v n m A={v_(n_(0)),dots,v_(n_(m))}A=\left\{v_{n_{0}}, \ldots, v_{n_{m}}\right\}A={vn0,…,vnm} is represented by the set of coding nodes { c ( n 0 ) , , c ( n m ) } c n 0 , … , c n m {c(n_(0)),dots,c(n_(m))}\left\{c\left(n_{0}\right), \ldots, c\left(n_{m}\right)\right\}{c(n0),…,c(nm)} as follows: For each i m i ≤ m i <= mi \leq mi≤m, since c ( n i ) c n i c(n_(i))c\left(n_{i}\right)c(ni) is the quantifierfree 1-type of v n i v n i v_(n_(i))v_{n_{i}}vni over K n i K n i K_(n_(i))\mathbf{K}_{n_{i}}Kni, substituting v n i v n i v_(n_(i))v_{n_{i}}vni for the variable x x xxx into each formula in c ( n i ) c n i c(n_(i))c\left(n_{i}\right)c(ni) which has only parameters from { v n j : j < i } v n j : j < i {v_(n_(j)):j < i}\left\{v_{n_{j}}: j<i\right\}{vnj:j<i} uniquely determines the relations in A A A\mathbf{A}A on the vertices { v n j : j i } v n j : j ≤ i {v_(n_(j)):j <= i}\left\{v_{n_{j}}: j \leq i\right\}{vnj:j≤i}. In [8], we formulated the following strengthening of SAP in order to extract a general property ensuring that big Ramsey degrees have simple characterizations.
Definition 5.2 (SDAP). A Fraïssé class K K K\mathcal{K}K has the Substructure Disjoint Amalgamation Property (SDAP) if K K K\mathcal{K}K has strong amalgamation, and the following holds: Given A , C K A , C ∈ K A,CinK\mathbf{A}, \mathbf{C} \in \mathcal{K}A,C∈K, suppose that A A A\mathbf{A}A is a substructure of C C C\mathbf{C}C, where C C C\mathbf{C}C extends A A A\mathbf{A}A by two vertices, say v v vvv and w w www. Then there exist A , C K A ′ , C ′ ∈ K A^('),C^(')inK\mathbf{A}^{\prime}, \mathbf{C}^{\prime} \in \mathcal{K}A′,C′∈K, where A A A\mathbf{A}A is a substructure of A A ′ A^(')\mathbf{A}^{\prime}A′ and C C ′ C^(')\mathbf{C}^{\prime}C′ is a disjoint amalgamation of A A ′ A^(')\mathbf{A}^{\prime}A′ and C C C\mathbf{C}C over A A A\mathbf{A}A, such that letting v , w v ′ , w ′ v^('),w^(')v^{\prime}, w^{\prime}v′,w′ denote the two vertices in C A C ′ ∖ A ′ C^(')\\A^(')C^{\prime} \backslash A^{\prime}C′∖A′ and assuming (1) and (2), the conclusion holds:
(1) Suppose B K B ∈ K BinK\mathbf{B} \in \mathcal{K}B∈K is any structure containing A A ′ A^(')\mathbf{A}^{\prime}A′ as a substructure, and let σ σ sigma\sigmaσ and τ Ï„ tau\tauÏ„ be 1-types over B B B\mathbf{B}B satisfying σ A = tp ( v / A ) σ ↾ A ′ = tp ⁡ v ′ / A ′ sigma↾A^(')=tp(v^(')//A^('))\sigma \upharpoonright \mathbf{A}^{\prime}=\operatorname{tp}\left(v^{\prime} / \mathbf{A}^{\prime}\right)σ↾A′=tp⁡(v′/A′) and τ A = tp ( w / A ) Ï„ ↾ A ′ = tp ⁡ w ′ / A ′ tau↾A^(')=tp(w^(')//A^('))\tau \upharpoonright \mathbf{A}^{\prime}=\operatorname{tp}\left(w^{\prime} / \mathbf{A}^{\prime}\right)τ↾A′=tp⁡(w′/A′),
(2) Suppose D K D ∈ K DinK\mathbf{D} \in \mathcal{K}D∈K extends B B B\mathbf{B}B by one vertex, say v v ′ ′ v^('')v^{\prime \prime}v′′, such that tp ( v / B ) = σ tp ⁡ v ′ ′ / B = σ tp(v^('')//B)=sigma\operatorname{tp}\left(v^{\prime \prime} / \mathbf{B}\right)=\sigmatp⁡(v′′/B)=σ.
Then there is an E K E ∈ K EinK\mathbf{E} \in \mathcal{K}E∈K extending D D D\mathbf{D}D by one vertex, say, w w ′ ′ w^('')w^{\prime \prime}w′′, such that tp ( w / B ) = τ tp ⁡ w ′ ′ / B = Ï„ tp(w^('')//B)=tau\operatorname{tp}\left(w^{\prime \prime} / \mathbf{B}\right)=\tautp⁡(w′′/B)=Ï„ and E ( A { v , w } ) C E ↾ A ∪ v ′ ′ , w ′ ′ ≅ C E↾(Auu{v^(''),w^('')})~=C\mathbf{E} \upharpoonright\left(\mathrm{A} \cup\left\{v^{\prime \prime}, w^{\prime \prime}\right\}\right) \cong \mathbf{C}E↾(A∪{v′′,w′′})≅C.
This amalgamation property can, of course, be presented in terms of embeddings, but the form here is indicative of how it is utilized. A free amalgamation version called SFAP is obtained from SDAP by restricting to FAP classes and requiring A = A A ′ = A A^(')=A\mathbf{A}^{\prime}=\mathbf{A}A′=A and C = C C ′ = C C^(')=C\mathbf{C}^{\prime}=\mathbf{C}C′=C. Both of these amalgamation properties are preserved under free superposition. A diagonal subtree of S ( K ) S ( K ) S(K)\mathbb{S}(\mathbf{K})S(K) is a subtree such that at any level, at most one node branches, the branching degree is two, and branching and coding nodes never occur on the same level. Diagonal coding trees are subtrees of S ( K ) S ( K ) S(K)\mathbb{S}(\mathbf{K})S(K) which are diagonal and represent a subcopy of K K K\mathbf{K}K. The property S D A P + S D A P + SDAP^(+)\mathrm{SDAP}^{+}SDAP+holds for a homogeneous structure K K K\mathbf{K}K if (a) its age satisfies SDAP, (b) there is a
diagonal coding subtree of S ( K ) S ( K ) S(K)\mathbb{S}(\mathbf{K})S(K), and (c) a technicality called the Extension Property which in most cases is trivially satisfied. Classes of the form Forb ( F ) Forb ⁡ ( F ) Forb(F)\operatorname{Forb}(\mathscr{F})Forb⁡(F) where F F F\mathscr{F}F is a finite set of 3-irreducible structures, meaning each triple of vertices is in some relation, satisfy SFAP; their ordered versions satisfy S D A P + S D A P + SDAP^(+)\mathrm{SDAP}^{+}SDAP+.
A version of the Halpern-Läuchli theorem for diagonal coding trees was proved in [8] using the method of forcing to obtain a ZFC result, with the following theorem as an immediate consequence.
Theorem 5.3 ([8]). Let K K K\mathbf{K}K be a homogeneous structure satisfying S D A P + S D A P + SDAP^(+)\mathrm{SDAP}^{+}SDAP+, with finitely many relations of any arity. Then K K K\mathbf{K}K is indivisible.
For relations of arity at most two, an induction proof then yields a Ramsey theorem for finite colorings of finite antichains of coding nodes in diagonal coding trees. This accomplishes steps I-III simultaneously and directly, without any need for envelopes, providing upper bounds which are then proved to be exact, finishing step IV.
Theorem 5.4 ([8]). Let K K K\mathbf{K}K be a homogeneous structure satisfying S A D P + S A D P + SADP^(+)\mathrm{SADP}^{+}SADP+, with finitely many relations of arity at most two. Then K K K\mathbf{K}K admits a big Ramsey structure and, moreover, has simply characterized big Ramsey degrees.
Theorem 5.4 provides new classes of examples of big Ramsey structures while recovering results in [ 10 , 38 , 43 , 44 ] [ 10 , 38 , 43 , 44 ] [10,38,43,44][10,38,43,44][10,38,43,44] and special cases of the results in [ 71 ] [ 71 ] [71][71][71]. Theorem 5.3 provides new classes of examples of indivisible Fraïssé structures, in particular for ordered structures such as the ordered Rado graph, while recovering results in [24, 27, 42] and certain cases of Sauer's results in [64] for FAP classes, while providing new SAP examples with indivisibility.

5.2. Big Ramsey degrees for free amalgamation classes

An obstacle to progress in partition theory of homogeneous structures had been the fact that Milliken's theorem is not able to handle forbidden substructures, for instance, triangle-free graphs. Most results up to 2010 had either utilized Milliken's theorem or a variation (as in [ 43 , 62 ] [ 43 , 62 ] [43,62][43,62][43,62] ) or else used difficult direct methods (as in [60]) which did not lend naturally to generalizations. The idea of coding trees came to the author during the her stay at the Isaac Newton Institute in 2015 for the programme, Mathematical, Foundational and Computational Aspects of the Higher Infinite, culminating in the work [13]. The ideas behind coding trees included the following: Knowing that at the end of the process one will want a diagonal antichain representing a copy of G 3 G 3 G_(3)\mathbf{G}_{3}G3, starting with a tree where vertices in G 3 G 3 G_(3)\mathbf{G}_{3}G3 are represented by special nodes on different levels should not hurt the results. Further, by using special nodes to code the vertices of G 3 G 3 G_(3)\mathbf{G}_{3}G3 into the trees, one might have a chance to prove Milliken-style theorems on a collection of trees, each of which codes a subcopy of G 3 G 3 G_(3)\mathbf{G}_{3}G3.
The author had made a previous attempt at this problem starting early in 2012. Upon stating her interest this problem, Todorcevic (2012, at the Fields Institute Thematic Program on Forcing and Its Applications) and Sauer (2013, at the Erdős Centenary Meeting) each told the author that a new kind of Milliken theorem would need to be developed in order to handle triangle-free graphs, which intrigued her even more. Though unknown to her at the
time, a key piece to this puzzle would be Harrington's forcing proof of the Halpern-Läuchli theorem, which Laver was kind enough to outline to her in 2011. (At that time, the author was unaware of the proof in [67].) While at the INI in 2015, Bartošová reminded the author of her interest in big Ramsey degrees of G 3 G 3 G_(3)\mathbf{G}_{3}G3. Having had time by then to fill out and digest Laver's outline, it occurred to the author to try approaching the problem first with the strongest tool available, namely forcing.
Forcing is a set-theoretic method which is normally used to extend a given universe satisfying a given set of axioms (often ZFC) to a larger universe in which the same set of axioms hold while some other statement or property is different than in the original universe. The beautiful thing about Harrington's proof is that, while it does involve the method of forcing, the forcing is only used as a search engine for an object which already exists in the universe in which one lives. In the context of the Fraïssé limit K K K\mathbf{K}K of a class Forb(F), where F F F\mathcal{F}F is a finite set of finite irreducible structures, by carefully designing forcings on coding trees with partial orders ensuring that new levels obtained by the search engine are capable of extending a given fixed finite coding tree to a subcoding tree representing a copy of K K K\mathbf{K}K, one is able to prove Halpern-Läuchli-style theorems for coding trees. These form the pigeonhole principles of various Milliken-style theorems for coding trees
As the results and main ideas of the methods in [ 12 , 13 , 71 ] [ 12 , 13 , 71 ] [12,13,71][12,13,71][12,13,71] have been discussed in the previous section, we now present the characterization of big Ramsey degrees in [6].
Theorem 5.5 ([6]). Let K K K\mathbf{K}K be a homogeneous structure with finitely many relations of arity at most two such that Age ( K ) = Forb ( F ) Age ⁡ ( K ) = Forb ⁡ ( F ) Age(K)=Forb(F)\operatorname{Age}(\mathbf{K})=\operatorname{Forb}(\mathcal{F})Age⁡(K)=Forb⁡(F) for some finite set F F F\mathscr{F}F of finite irreducible structures. Then K K K\mathbf{K}K admits a big Ramsey structure.
Given a Fraïssé class K = Forb ( F ) K = Forb ⁡ ( F ) K=Forb(F)\mathcal{K}=\operatorname{Forb}(\mathcal{F})K=Forb⁡(F) with relations of arity at most two, where F F F\mathcal{F}F is a finite set of finite irreducible structures, let K K K\mathbf{K}K denote an enumerated Fraïssé limit of K K K\mathcal{K}K. Coding trees for K K K\mathbf{K}K appearing in various papers are all essentially coding trees of 1-types. The proof of Theorem 5.5 uses the upper bounds of Zucker in [71] as the starting point. It then proceeds by constructing a diagonal antichain of coding nodes which represent the structure K K K\mathbf{K}K, with additional requirements if there are any forbidden irreducible substructures of size three or more. While the exact characterization in its full generality is not short to state, the simpler version for the structures G k G k G_(k)\mathbf{G}_{k}Gk include the following: All coding nodes c n A c n ∈ A c_(n)inAc_{n} \in \mathbf{A}cn∈A code an edge with v m v m v_(m)v_{m}vm for some m < n m < n m < nm<nm<n and have the following property: If B B B\mathbf{B}B is any finite graph which has the same relations over G k | c n | G k ↾ c n G_(k)↾|c_(n)|\mathbf{G}_{k} \upharpoonright\left|c_{n}\right|Gk↾|cn| as c n c n c_(n)c_{n}cn does, then B B B\mathbf{B}B has no edges. Furthermore changes in the sets of structures which are allowed to extend a given truncation of A A A\mathbf{A}A (as a level set in the coding tree) happen as gradually as possible. From the characterization in [6], one can make an algorithm to compute the big Ramsey degrees.
As a concrete example, we present the exact characterization for triangle-free graphs. In Figure 2, on the left is the beginning of G 3 G 3 G_(3)\mathbf{G}_{3}G3 with some fixed enumeration of the vertices as { v n : n < ω } v n : n < ω {v_(n):n < omega}\left\{v_{n}: n<\omega\right\}{vn:n<ω}. The n n nnnth coding node in the tree S = S ( G 3 ) 2 < ω S = S G 3 ⊆ 2 < ω S=S(G_(3))sube2^( < omega)\mathbb{S}=\mathbb{S}\left(\mathbf{G}_{3}\right) \subseteq 2^{<\omega}S=S(G3)⊆2<ω represents the n n nnnth vertex v n v n v_(n)v_{n}vn in G 3 G 3 G_(3)\mathbf{G}_{3}G3, where passing number 0 represents a nonedge and passing number 1 represents an edge. Equivalently, S S S\mathbb{S}S is the coding tree of 1-types for G 3 G 3 G_(3)\mathbf{G}_{3}G3, as the left branch at the level of c n c n c_(n)c_{n}cn represents the literal ( x v n ) x Z̸ v n (xZv_(n))\left(x \not Z v_{n}\right)(xZ̸vn) and the right branch represents ( x E v n ) x E v n (xEv_(n))\left(x E v_{n}\right)(xEvn)
FIGURE 2
Coding tree S ( G 3 ) S G 3 S(G_(3))\mathbb{S}\left(\mathbf{G}_{3}\right)S(G3) and the triangle-free graph represented by its coding nodes.
Given an antichain A K A ⊆ K AsubeK\mathbf{A} \subseteq \mathbf{K}A⊆K, we say that A A A\mathbf{A}A is a diagonal substructure if, letting I I III be the set of indices of vertices in A A A\mathbf{A}A, the following hold: (a) For each i I , v i i ∈ I , v i i in I,v_(i)i \in I, v_{i}i∈I,vi has an edge with v m v m v_(m)v_{m}vm for some m < i m < i m < im<im<i; let m i m i m_(i)m_{i}mi denote the least such m m mmm. (b) If i < j i < j i < ji<ji<j are in I I III with v i j v i v̸ j v_(i)v_(j)v_{i} \not v_{j}viv̸j and m j < i m j < i m_(j) < im_{j}<imj<i, then there is some n i n ∈ i n in in \in in∈i such that v i E v n v i E v n v_(i)Ev_(n)v_{i} E v_{n}viEvn and v j E v n v j E v n v_(j)Ev_(n)v_{j} E v_{n}vjEvn, and the least such n n nnn, denoted n ( i , j ) n ( i , j ) n(i,j)n(i, j)n(i,j) is not in I I III. (c) For each i , j , k , I i , j , k , ℓ ∈ I i,j,k,ℓin Ii, j, k, \ell \in Ii,j,k,ℓ∈I (not necessarily distinct) with i < j , k < i < j , k < ℓ i < j,k < ℓi<j, k<\elli<j,k<ℓ, ( i , j ) ( k , ) , n j < i ( i , j ) ≠ ( k , ℓ ) , n j < i (i,j)!=(k,ℓ),n_(j) < i(i, j) \neq(k, \ell), n_{j}<i(i,j)≠(k,ℓ),nj<i, and n < k n ℓ < k n_(ℓ) < kn_{\ell}<knℓ<k, we have n ( i , j ) n ( k , ) n ( i , j ) ≠ n ( k , ℓ ) n(i,j)!=n(k,ℓ)n(i, j) \neq n(k, \ell)n(i,j)≠n(k,ℓ). Given a finite triangle-free graph A A A\mathbf{A}A, the big Ramsey degree T ( A ) T ( A ) T(A)T(\mathbf{A})T(A) in G 3 G 3 G_(3)\mathbf{G}_{3}G3 is the number of different diagonal substructures representing a copy of A A A\mathbf{A}A.
We conclude this section by mentioning the exact big Ramsey degrees in the generic partial order in [5]. This result begins with the upper bounds proved by Hubička in [39] and then proceeds by taking a diagonal antichain D D DDD representing the generic partial order with additional structure of interesting levels built into D D DDD. A level â„“ â„“\ellâ„“ of D D DDD is interesting if there are exactly two nodes, say s s sss, t t ttt, in that level so that ( ) ( ∗ ) (**)(*)(∗) for exactly one relation ρ { < , > , } ρ ∈ { < , > , ⊥ } rho in{ < , > ,_|_}\rho \in\{<,>, \perp\}ρ∈{<,>,⊥}, given any s , t D s ′ , t ′ ∈ D s^('),t^(')in Ds^{\prime}, t^{\prime} \in Ds′,t′∈D extending s , t s , t s,ts, ts,t, respectively, s ρ t s ′ ρ t ′ s^(')rhot^(')s^{\prime} \rho t^{\prime}s′ρt′, while there is no such relation for the pair s ( 1 ) , t ( 1 ) s ↾ ( â„“ − 1 ) , t ↾ ( â„“ − 1 ) s↾(â„“-1),t↾(â„“-1)s \upharpoonright(\ell-1), t \upharpoonright(\ell-1)s↾(ℓ−1),t↾(ℓ−1). Since an interesting level for a pair of nodes s , t s , t s,ts, ts,t predetermines the relations between any pair s , t s ′ , t ′ s^('),t^(')s^{\prime}, t^{\prime}s′,t′ extending s , t s , t s,ts, ts,t, respectively, passing numbers are unnecessary to the characterization. The big Ramsey degree of a given finite partial order P P P\mathbf{P}P is then the number of different diagonal antichains A D A ⊆ D A sube DA \subseteq DA⊆D representing P P P\mathbf{P}P along with the order in which the interesting levels are interspersed between the splitting levels and the nodes in A A AAA.
Section 2 laid out the guiding questions for big Ramsey degrees. Here we discuss some of the major open problems in big Ramsey degrees and ongoing research in cognate areas.
Problem 6.1. For which SAP Fraïssé classes does the Fraïssé limit have finite big Ramsey degrees?
Subquestions are the following: Given an SAP Fraïssé class with finitely many relations and a finite set of forbidden substructures, does its Fraïssé limit have finite big Ramsey degrees? Results in [40] give evidence for a positive answer to this question. For such classes with relations of arity at most two, do big Ramsey degrees always exist? We would like a general condition on SAP classes characterizing those with finite big Ramsey degrees. We point out that Problem 6.1 in its full generality is still open for small Ramsey degrees
Problem 6.2. For results whose proofs use the method of forcing, find new proofs which are purely combinatorial.
This has been done for the triangle-free graph by Hubička in [39], but new methods will be needed for k k kkk-clique-free homogeneous graphs for k 4 k ≥ 4 k >= 4k \geq 4k≥4 and other such FAP classes.
The next problem has to do with topological dynamics of automorphism groups of homogeneous structures. The work of Zucker in [70] has established a connection but not a complete correspondence yet.
Problem 6.3. Does every homogeneous structure with finite big Ramsey degrees also carry a big Ramsey structure? Is there an exact correspondence, in the vein of the KPTcorrespondence, between big Ramsey structures and topological dynamics?
The hope in Problem 6.3 is to obtain as complete a dynamical understanding of big Ramsey degrees as we have for small Ramsey degrees, where a result of [69] shows that given a Fraïssé class K K K\mathcal{K}K with Fraïssé limit K K K\mathbf{K}K, then K K K\mathcal{K}K has finite small Ramsey degrees if and only if the universal minimal flow of Aut ( K ) Aut ⁡ ( K ) Aut(K)\operatorname{Aut}(\mathbf{K})Aut⁡(K) is metrizable.
Finally, we mention several areas of ongoing study related to the main focus of this paper. Computability-theoretic and reverse mathematical aspects have been investigated by Anglès d'Auriac, Cholak, Dzhafarov, Monin, and Patey. In their treatise [1], they show that the Halpern-Läuchli theorem is computably true and find reverse-mathematical strengths for various instances of the product Milliken theorem and the big Ramsey structures of the rationals and the Rado graph. As these structures both have simply characterized big Ramsey degrees, it will be interesting to see if different reverse mathematical strengths emerge for structures such as the triangle-free homogeneous graph or the generic partial order.
Extending Harrington's forcing proof to the uncountable realm, Shelah in [59] showed that it is consistent, assuming certain large cardinals, that the Halpern-Läuchli theorem holds for trees 2 < κ 2 < κ 2^( < kappa)2^{<\kappa}2<κ, where κ κ kappa\kappaκ is a measurable cardinal. Džamonja, Larson, and Mitchell applied a slight modification of his theorem to characterize the big Ramsey degrees for the κ κ kappa\kappaκ-rationals and the κ κ kappa\kappaκ-Rado graph in [22] and [23]. Their characterizations have as their basis the characterizations of Devlin and Laflamme-Sauer-Vuksanovic for the rationals and Rado graph, respectively, but also involve well-orderings of each level of the tree 2 < κ 2 < κ 2^( < kappa)2^{<\kappa}2<κ, necessitated by κ κ kappa\kappaκ being uncountable. The field of big Ramsey degrees for uncountable
homogeneous structures is still quite open, but the fleshing out of the Ramsey theorems on trees of uncountable height has seen some recent work in [ 19 , 20 , 68 ] [ 19 , 20 , 68 ] [19,20,68][19,20,68][19,20,68].
The next problem comes from a general question in [41].
Problem 6.4. Develop infinite-dimensional Ramsey theory on spaces of copies of a homogeneous structure.
For a set N ω N ⊆ ω N sube omegaN \subseteq \omegaN⊆ω, let [ N ] ω [ N ] ω [N]^(omega)[N]^{\omega}[N]ω denote the set of all infinite subsets of N N NNN, and note that [ ω ] ω [ ω ] ω [omega]^(omega)[\omega]^{\omega}[ω]ω represents the Baire space. The infinite-dimensional Ramsey theorem of Galvin and Prikry [33] says that given any Borel subset X X X\mathcal{X}X of the Baire space, there is an infinite set N N NNN such that [ N ] ω [ N ] ω [N]^(omega)[N]^{\omega}[N]ω is either contained in X X X\mathcal{X}X or is disjoint from X X X\mathcal{X}X. Ellentuck's theorem in [29] found optimality in terms of sets with the property of Baire with respect to a finer topology. The question in [41] asks for extensions of these theorems to subspaces of [ ω ] ω [ ω ] ω [omega]^(omega)[\omega]^{\omega}[ω]ω, where each infinite set represents a copy of some fixed homogeneous structure. A GalvinPrikry-style theorem for spaces of copies of the Rado graph has been proved by the author in [17]. By a comment of Todorcevic in Luminy in 2019, the infinite-dimensional Ramsey theorem should ideally also recover exact big Ramsey degrees. Such a theorem is being written down by the author for structures satisfying S D A P + S D A P + SDAP^(+)\mathrm{SDAP}^{+}SDAP+with relations of arity at most two. This is one instance where coding trees are necessitated to be diagonal in order for the infinite dimensional Ramsey theorem to directly recover exact big Ramsey degrees.
We close by mentioning that structural Ramsey theory has been central in investigations of ultrafilters which are relaxings of Ramsey ultrafilters in the same way that big Ramsey degrees are relaxings of Ramsey's theorem. An exposition of recent work appearing in [16] will give the reader yet another view of the power of Ramsey theory.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author is grateful to her PhD advisor Karel Prikry, and to Richard Laver, Norbert Sauer, and Stevo Todorcevic who have mentored her in areas related to this paper. She thanks Jan Hubička, Matěj Konečný, Dragan Mašulović, Lionel Nguyen Van Thé, and Andy Zucker for valuable feedback on drafts of this paper.

FUNDING

This work was partially supported by National Science Foundation Grant DMS-1901753.

REFERENCES

[1] P. E. Anglès d'Auriac, P. A. Cholak, D. D. Dzhafarov, B. Monin, and L. Patey, Milliken's tree theorem and its applications: a computability-theoretic perspective. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. (to appear).
[2] M. Balko, D. Chodounský, J. Hubička, M. Konečný, J. Nešetřil, and L. Vena, Big Ramsey degrees and forbidden cycles. In Extended abstracts EuroComb 2021, edited by J. Nešetřil, G. Perarnau, J. Rué, and O. Serra, pp. 436-441, Springer, 2021.
[3] M. Balko, D. Chodounský, J. Hubička, M. Konečný, and L. Vena, Big Ramsey degrees of 3-uniform hypergraphs. Acta Math. Univ. Comenian. LXXXVIII (2019), no. 3, 415-422.
[4] M. Balko, D. Chodounsky, J. Hubička, M. Konečny, and L. Vena, Lluis, Big Ramsey degrees of 3-uniform hypergraphs are finite. Combinatorica 42 (2022), no. 5, 659-672.
[5] M. Balko, D. Chodounský, N. Dobrinen, J. Hubička, M. Konečný, L. Vena, and A. Zucker, Big Ramsey degrees of the generic partial order. In Extended abstracts EuroComb 2021, edited by J. Nešetřil, G. Perarnau, J. Rué, and O. Serra, pp. 637-643, Springer, 2021.
[6] M. Balko, D. Chodounský, N. Dobrinen, J. Hubička, M. Konečný, L. Vena, and A. Zucker, Exact big Ramsey degrees via coding trees. 2021, arXiv:2110.08409.
[7] T. Carlson and S. G. Simpson, A dual form of Ramsey's theorem. Adv. Math. 53 (1984), no. 3, 265-290.
[8] R. Coulson, N. Dobrinen, and R. Patel, Fraïssé classes with simply characterized big Ramsey structures. 2020, arXiv:2010.02034.
[9] K. Dasilva Barbosa, A categorical notion of precompact expansions. 2020, arXiv:2002.11751.
[10] D. Devlin, Some partition theorems for ultrafilters on ω ω omega\omegaω. Ph.D. thesis, Dartmouth College, 1980 .
[11] N. Dobrinen, Forcing in Ramsey theory. RIMS Kokyuroku 2042 (2017), 17-33.
[12] N. Dobrinen, The Ramsey theory of Henson graphs. J. Math. Log. (2022). DOI 10.1142/S0219061322500180.
[13] N. Dobrinen, The Ramsey theory of the universal homogeneous triangle-free graph. J. Math. Log. 20 (2020), no. 2, 2050012,75 pp.
[14] N. Dobrinen, Ramsey theory of the universal homogeneous triangle-free graph, Part II: exact big Ramsey degrees. 2020, arXiv:2009.01985.
[15] N. Dobrinen, Ramsey Theory on infinite structures and the method of strong coding trees. In Contemporary logic and computing, edited by A. Rezus, pp. 444-467, College Publications, London, 2020.
[16] N. Dobrinen, Topological Ramsey spaces dense in forcings. In Structure and randomness in computability and set theory, edited by D. Cenzer and J. Zapletal, pp. 3-58, World Scientific, 2020.
[17] N. Dobrinen, Borel sets of Rado graphs and Ramsey's theorem. In European Journal of Combinatorics, Proc. 2016 Prague DocCourse on Ramsey Th. To appear, arXiv:1904.00266.
[18] N. Dobrinen and W. Gasarch, When Ramsey theory fails settle for more colors (Big Ramsey Degrees!). SIGACT News Open Prob. Col. 51 (2020), no. 4, 30-46.
[19] N. Dobrinen and D. Hathaway, The Halpern-Läuchli theorem at a measurable cardinal. J. Symbolic Logic 82 (2017), no. 4, 1560-1575.
[20] N. Dobrinen and D. Hathaway, Forcing and the Halpern-Läuchli theorem. J. Symbolic Logic 85 (2020), no. 1, 87-102.
[21] P. Dodos and V. Kanellopoulos, Ramsey theory for product spaces. Math. Surveys Monogr. 212, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, 2016.
[22] M. Džamonja, J. Larson, and W. J. Mitchell, A partition theorem for a large dense linear order. Israel J. Math. 171 (2009), 237-284.
[23] M. Džamonja, J. Larson, and W. J. Mitchell, Partitions of large Rado graphs. Arch. Math. Logic 48 (2009), no. 6, 579-606.
[24] M. El-Zahar and N. Sauer, The indivisibility of the homogeneous K n K n K_(n)K_{n}Kn-free graphs. J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 47 (1989), no. 2, 162-170.
[25] M. El-Zahar and N. Sauer, Ramsey-type properties of relational structures. Discrete Math. 94 (1991), no. 1, 1-10.
[26] M. El-Zahar and N. Sauer, On the divisibility of homogeneous directed graphs. Canad. J. Math. 45 (1993), no. 2, 284-294.
[27] M. El-Zahar and N. Sauer, On the divisibility of homogeneous hypergraphs. Combinatorica 14 (1994), no. 2, 159-165.
[28] M. El-Zahar and N. Sauer, Indivisible homogeneous directed graphs and a game for vertex partitions. Discrete Math. 291 (2005), no. 1-3, 99-113.
[29] E. Ellentuck, A new proof that analytic sets are Ramsey. J. Symbolic Logic 39 (1974), no. 1, 163-165.
[30] P. Erdős, A. Hajnal, and L. Pósa, Strong embeddings of graphs into colored graphs. In Infinite and finite sets (Colloq., Keszthely, 1973; dedicated to P. Erdös on his 60th birthday), vol. I, pp. 585-595, Colloq. Math. Soc. János Bolyai 10, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1975.
[31] R. Fraïssé, Sur l'extension aux relations de quelques propriétés des ordres. Ann. Sci. Éc. Norm. Supér. 71 (1954), no. 3, 363-388.
[32] R. Fraïssé, Theory of relations. Revised edition. With an appendix by Norbert Sauer. Stud. Logic Found. Math. 145, North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 2000 .
[33] F. Galvin and K. Prikry, Borel sets and Ramsey's theorem. J. Symbolic Logic 38 (1973), no. 2, 193-198.
[34] J. D. Halpern and H. Läuchli, A partition theorem. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 124 (1966), 360-367.
[35] J. D. Halpern and A. Lévy, The Boolean prime ideal theorem does not imply the axiom of choice. In Axiomatic set theory, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., Vol. XIII, Part I, Univ. California, Los Angeles, Calif., 1967, pp. 83-134, Amer. Math. Soc., 1971.
[36] C. W. Henson, A family of countable homogeneous graphs. Pacific J. Math. 38 (1971), no. 1, 69-83.
[37] G. Hjorth, An oscillation theorem for groups of isometries. Geom. Funct. Anal. 18 (2008), no. 2, 489-521.
[38] J. Howe, Big Ramsey degrees in homogeneous structures. Ph.D. thesis, University of Leeds, Expected, 2021.
[39] J. Hubička, Big Ramsey degrees using parameter spaces. 2020, arXiv:2009.00967.
[40] J. Hubička and J. Nešetřil, All those Ramsey classes (Ramsey classes with closures and forbidden homomorphisms). Adv. Math. 356 (2019), 106791, 89 pp.
[41] A. Kechris, V. Pestov, and S. Todorcevic, Fraïssé limits, Ramsey theory, and topological dynamics of automorphism groups. Geom. Funct. Anal. 15 (2005), no. 1, 106 189 106 − 189 106-189106-189106−189.
[42] P. Komjáth and V. Rödl, Coloring of universal graphs. Graphs Combin. 2 (1986), no. 1, 55-60.
[43] C. Laflamme, L. Nguyen Van Thé, and N. Sauer, Partition properties of the dense local order and a colored version of Milliken's theorem. Combinatorica 30 (2010), no. 1 , 83 104 1 , 83 − 104 1,83-1041,83-1041,83−104.
[44] C. Laflamme, N. Sauer, and V. Vuksanovic, Canonical partitions of universal structures. Combinatorica 26 (2006), no. 2, 183-205.
[45] J. Larson, Counting canonical partitions in the random graph. Combinatorica 28 (2008), no. 6, 659-678.
[46] J. Larson, Sets and extensions in the twentieth century. In Handbook of the history of logic, 6, infinite combinatorics, pp. 145-357, North-Holland, 2012.
[47] D. Mašulović, Finite big Ramsey degrees in universal structures. J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 170 (2020), no. 1, 105137, 30 pp.
[48] D. Mašulović, Ramsey degrees: big vs. small. European J. Combin. 95 (2021), 103323 , 25 p p 103323 , 25 p p 103323,25pp103323,25 \mathrm{pp}103323,25pp.
[49] D. Mašulović and B. Šobot, Countable ordinals and big Ramsey degrees. Combinatorica 41 (2021), no. 3, 425-446.
[50] K. R. Milliken, A Ramsey theorem for trees. J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 26 (1976), 215-237.
[51] J. Nešetřil and V. Rödl, Partitions of finite relational and set systems. J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 22 (1977), no. 3, 289-312.
[52] J. Nešetřil and V. Rödl, Ramsey classes of set systems. J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 34 (1983), no. 2, 183-201.
[53] L. Nguyen Van Thé, Big Ramsey degrees and divisibility in classes of ultrametric spaces. Canad. Math. Bull. 51 (2008), no. 3, 413-423.
[54] L. Nguyen Van Thé, Structural Ramsey theory with the Kechris-Pestov-Todorcevic correspondence in mind. Habilitation thesis, Université d'Aix-Marseille, 2013.
[55] L. Nguyen Van Thé and N. Sauer, The Urysohn sphere is oscillation stable. Geom. Funct. Anal. 19 (2009), no. 2, 536-557.
[56] T. Odell and T. Schlumprecht, The distortion problem. Acta Math. 173 (1994), no. 2, 259-281.
[57] M. Pouzet and N. Sauer, Edge partitions of the Rado graph. Combinatorica 16 (1996), no. 4, 505-520.
[58] F. P. Ramsey, On a problem of formal logic. Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (2) 30 (1929), no. 4, 264-296.
[59] S. Saharon, Strong partition relations below the power set: consistency - was Sierpinski right? II. In Sets, graphs and numbers (Budapest, 1991), pp. 637-688, Colloq. Math. Soc. János Bolyai 60, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1992.
[60] N. Sauer, Edge partitions of the countable triangle free homogenous graph. Discrete Math. 185 (1998), no. 1-3, 137-181.
[61] N. Sauer, Canonical vertex partitions. Combin. Probab. Comput. 12 (2003), no. 6, 671-704.
[62] N. Sauer, Coloring subgraphs of the Rado graph. Combinatorica 26 (2006), no. 2, 231-253.
[63] N. Sauer, Vertex partitions of metric spaces with finite distance sets. Discrete Math. 312 (2012), no. 1, 119-128
[64] N. Sauer, Coloring homogeneous structures. 2020, arXiv:2008.02375.
[65] W. Sierpiński, Sur une problème de lat théorie des relations. Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa (2) 2 (1933), 239-242.
[66] S. Todorcevic, Introduction to Ramsey spaces. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 2010.
[67] S. Todorcevic and I. Farah, Some applications of the method of forcing. Yenisei Ser. Pure Appl. Math., Yenisei, Moscow, 1995.
[68] J. Zhang, A tail cone version of the Halpern-Läuchli theorem at a large cardinal. J. Symbolic Logic 84 (2017), no. 2, 473-496.
[69] A. Zucker, Topological dynamics of automorphism groups, ultrafilter combinatorics, and the generic point problem. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 368 (2016), no. 9, 6715 6740 6715 − 6740 6715-67406715-67406715−6740.
[70] A. Zucker, Big Ramsey degrees and topological dynamics. Groups Geom. Dyn. 13 (2018), no. 1, 235-276.
[71] A. Zucker, On big Ramsey degrees for binary free amalgamation classes. Adv. Math. 408 A (2022), 108585, 25 p p 25 p p 25pp25 \mathrm{pp}25pp.

NATASHA DOBRINEN

University of Denver, Department of Mathematics, 2390 S. York St., Denver, CO 80210, USA; current address: University of Notre Dame, Department of Mathematics, 255 Hurley Building, Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA, ndobrine @ nd.edu

MEASURABLE GRAPH COMBINATORICS

ANDREW S. MARKS

ABSTRACT

We survey some recent results in the theory of measurable graph combinatorics. We also discuss applications to the study of hyperfiniteness and measurable equidecompositions.

MATHEMATICS SUBJECT CLASSIFICATION 2020

Primary 03E15; Secondary 05C21, 22F10, 28A75, 37A20, 52B45

KEYWORDS

Descriptive set theory, measurable graph combinatorics, Borel graph, amenability, Borel equivalence relations, hyperfiniteness, asymptotic dimension, equidecomposition, tilings, Lovasz Local Lemma

1. INTRODUCTION

Measurable graph combinatorics focuses on finding measurable solutions to combinatorial problems on infinite graphs. This study involves ideas and techniques from combinatorics, ergodic theory, probability theory, descriptive set theory, and theoretical computer science. We survey some recent progress in this area, focusing on the study of locally finite graphs: graphs where each vertex has finitely many neighbors. We also discuss applications to the study of hyperfiniteness of Borel actions of groups, and measurable equidecompositions.
Without any constraints such as measurability conditions, combinatorial problems on locally finite graphs often simplify to studying their restriction to finite subgraphs. This is the case with the problem of graph coloring. Recall that if G = ( V , E ) G = ( V , E ) G=(V,E)G=(V, E)G=(V,E) is a graph, a (proper) Y Y YYY-coloring of G G GGG is a map c : V Y c : V → Y c:V rarr Yc: V \rightarrow Yc:V→Y so that for every two adjacent vertices { x , y } E { x , y } ∈ E {x,y}in E\{x, y\} \in E{x,y}∈E, the colors assigned to these two vertices are distinct, c ( x ) c ( y ) c ( x ) ≠ c ( y ) c(x)!=c(y)c(x) \neq c(y)c(x)≠c(y). The chromatic number χ ( G ) χ ( G ) chi(G)\chi(G)χ(G) of G G GGG is the smallest cardinality of a set Y Y YYY so there is a Y Y YYY-coloring of G G GGG. A classical theorem of De Bruijn and Erdő́s states that for a locally finite graph G G GGG, the chromatic number of G G GGG is equal to the supremum of the chromatic number of all finite subgraphs of G G GGG. That is, χ ( G ) = sup finite H G χ ( H ) χ ( G ) = sup finite  H ⊆ G   χ ( H ) chi(G)=s u p_("finite "H sube G)chi(H)\chi(G)=\sup _{\text {finite } H \subseteq G} \chi(H)χ(G)=supfinite H⊆Gχ(H). The proof of this theorem is a straightforward compactness argument using the Axiom of Choice.
In contrast, many phenomena can influence measurable chromatic numbers beyond just the constraints imposed by finite subgraphs. We illustrate this change in behavior with a simple example. Let S 1 S 1 S^(1)S^{1}S1 be the circle, let T : S 1 S 1 T : S 1 → S 1 T:S^(1)rarrS^(1)T: S^{1} \rightarrow S^{1}T:S1→S1 be an irrational rotation, and let μ μ mu\muμ be Lebesgue measure on S 1 S 1 S^(1)S^{1}S1. Consider the graph G T G T G_(T)G_{T}GT with vertex set S 1 S 1 S^(1)S^{1}S1 and where x , y x , y x,yx, yx,y are adjacent if T ( x ) = y T ( x ) = y T(x)=yT(x)=yT(x)=y or T ( y ) = x T ( y ) = x T(y)=xT(y)=xT(y)=x. Every vertex in G T G T G_(T)G_{T}GT has degree 2 and every connected component of G T G T G_(T)G_{T}GT is infinite. Hence, by alternating between two colors, it is easy to see that the classical chromatic number of G T G T G_(T)G_{T}GT is 2 . However, there can be no Lebesgue measurable 2-coloring of G T G T G_(T)G_{T}GT. Suppose c : S 1 { 0 , 1 } c : S 1 → { 0 , 1 } c:S^(1)rarr{0,1}c: S^{1} \rightarrow\{0,1\}c:S1→{0,1} was a Lebesgue measurable coloring of G T G T G_(T)G_{T}GT, and A 0 = { x : c ( x ) = 0 } A 0 = { x : c ( x ) = 0 } A_(0)={x:c(x)=0}A_{0}=\{x: c(x)=0\}A0={x:c(x)=0} and A 1 = { x : c ( x ) = 1 } A 1 = { x : c ( x ) = 1 } A_(1)={x:c(x)=1}A_{1}=\{x: c(x)=1\}A1={x:c(x)=1} were the two color sets. Then since the coloring must alternate between the two colors, we must have T ( A 0 ) = A 1 T A 0 = A 1 T(A_(0))=A_(1)T\left(A_{0}\right)=A_{1}T(A0)=A1, and since T T TTT is measure preserving and A 0 A 0 A_(0)A_{0}A0 and A 1 A 1 A_(1)A_{1}A1 are disjoint and cover S 1 S 1 S^(1)S^{1}S1, we therefore have λ ( A 0 ) = λ A 0 = lambda(A_(0))=\lambda\left(A_{0}\right)=λ(A0)= λ ( A 1 ) = 1 2 λ A 1 = 1 2 lambda(A_(1))=(1)/(2)\lambda\left(A_{1}\right)=\frac{1}{2}λ(A1)=12. However, the transformation T 2 T 2 T^(2)T^{2}T2 is also an irrational rotation and hence T 2 T 2 T^(2)T^{2}T2 is ergodic, meaning any set invariant under T 2 T 2 T^(2)T^{2}T2 must be null or conull. Since T 2 ( A 0 ) = A 0 T 2 A 0 = A 0 T^(2)(A_(0))=A_(0)T^{2}\left(A_{0}\right)=A_{0}T2(A0)=A0, A 0 A 0 A_(0)A_{0}A0 must be null or conull. Contradiction!
In this paper we focus on the study of combinatorial problems on Borel graphs: graphs where the set V V VVV of vertices is a standard Borel space and where the edge relation E E EEE is Borel as a subset of V × V V × V V xx VV \times VV×V. In the setting where each vertex has at most countably many neighbors, this is equivalent to saying that there are countably many Borel functions f 0 , f 1 , : V V f 0 , f 1 , … : V → V f_(0),f_(1),dots:V rarr Vf_{0}, f_{1}, \ldots: V \rightarrow Vf0,f1,…:V→V that generate G G GGG in the sense that x E y x E y xEyx E yxEy if and only if f i ( x ) = y f i ( x ) = y f_(i)(x)=yf_{i}(x)=yfi(x)=y for some i i iii. The equivalence follows from the Lusin-Novikov theorem [28, 18.15]. An important example of a Borel graph is the following type of Schreier graph. If a a aaa is a Borel action of a countable group Γ Î“ Gamma\GammaΓ on a standard Borel space X X XXX and S S SSS is a symmetric set of generators for Γ Î“ Gamma\GammaΓ, then let G ( a , S ) G ( a , S ) G(a,S)G(a, S)G(a,S) be the graph on the vertex set V = X V = X V=XV=XV=X where x , y V x , y ∈ V x,y in Vx, y \in Vx,y∈V are adjacent if there
is a γ S γ ∈ S gamma in S\gamma \in Sγ∈S such that γ x = y γ â‹… x = y gamma*x=y\gamma \cdot x=yγ⋅x=y. For example, the graph associated to the irrational rotation described above is a graph of this form.
For more comprehensive surveys of this area, the reader should consult the papers [30,44]. A notable recent development we will not discuss is the connections that have been found between measurable combinatorics and the study of distributed algorithms in theoretical computer science, particularly the LOCAL model. This model of computing takes place on a large graph where each vertex represents a computer which is assigned a unique identifier, and each edge is a communication link. These processors execute the same algorithm in parallel, communicating with their neighbors in rounds to construct a global solution to some combinatorial problem. Recent work [ 2 , 3 , 6 , 17 [ 2 , 3 , 6 , 17 [2,3,6,17[2,3,6,17[2,3,6,17 ] has established some precise connections between measurable combinatorics and LOCAL algorithms which have already led to new theorems in both areas (see, e.g., [2,4]).

2. MEASURABLE COLORINGS

If G G GGG is a Borel graph, we define the Borel chromatic number χ B ( G ) χ B ( G ) chi_(B)(G)\chi_{B}(G)χB(G) of G G GGG to be the smallest cardinality of a standard Borel space Y Y YYY so that there is a Borel measurable Y Y YYY coloring of G G GGG. We clearly have that χ ( G ) χ B ( G ) χ ( G ) ≤ χ B ( G ) chi(G) <= chi_(B)(G)\chi(G) \leq \chi_{B}(G)χ(G)≤χB(G) where χ ( G ) χ ( G ) chi(G)\chi(G)χ(G) is the classical chromatic number of G G GGG. Borel chromatic numbers were first studied in a foundational paper of Kechris, Solecki, and Todorcevic [32].
Let G = ( V , E ) G = ( V , E ) G=(V,E)G=(V, E)G=(V,E) be a graph. If x V x ∈ V x in Vx \in Vx∈V is a vertex, we let N ( x ) = { y : { x , y } E } N ( x ) = { y : { x , y } ∈ E } N(x)={y:{x,y}in E}N(x)=\{y:\{x, y\} \in E\}N(x)={y:{x,y}∈E} denote the set of neighbors of x x xxx. The degree of x x xxx is the cardinality of N ( x ) N ( x ) N(x)N(x)N(x). We say that a graph is Δ Î” Delta\DeltaΔ-regular if every vertex has degree Δ Î” Delta\DeltaΔ. A basic result about graph coloring is that, given any finite graph G G GGG of finite maximum degree Δ Î” Delta\DeltaΔ, there is a ( Δ + 1 ) ( Δ + 1 ) (Delta+1)(\Delta+1)(Δ+1)-coloring of G G GGG. This is easy to see by coloring the vertices of G G GGG one by one. If we have a partial coloring of G G GGG, then any uncolored vertex x x xxx has at most Δ Î” Delta\DeltaΔ neighbors so there must be a color from the set of Δ + 1 Δ + 1 Delta+1\Delta+1Δ+1 colors we can use to extend this partial coloring to x x xxx. The analogous fact remains true about Borel colorings:
Theorem 2.1 (Kechris, Solecki, Todorcevic [32, PROPosItion 4.6]). If G is a Borel graph of finite maximum degree Δ Î” Delta\DeltaΔ, then G G GGG has a Borel ( Δ + 1 ) ( Δ + 1 ) (Delta+1)(\Delta+1)(Δ+1)-coloring.
One method of proving this theorem is to adapt the greedy algorithm described above. Recall that a set of vertices is independent if it does not contain two adjacent vertices. First, we may find a countable sequence of Borel sets A n A n A_(n)A_{n}An such that each A n A n A_(n)A_{n}An is independent, and their union is all vertices n A n = V ( G ) ⋃ n   A n = V ( G ) uuu_(n)A_(n)=V(G)\bigcup_{n} A_{n}=V(G)⋃nAn=V(G). Then we can iteratively construct a coloring of G G GGG in countably many steps where at step n n nnn we color all the elements of A n A n A_(n)A_{n}An the least color not already used by one of its neighbors. In general, the connection between algorithms for solving combinatorial problems and measurable combinatorics is deep. Many techniques for constructing measurable colorings are based on algorithmic ideas, since algorithms for solving combinatorial problems will often yield an explicitly definable solutions to them.
The upper bound given by Theorem 2.1 is tight; a complete graph on Δ + 1 Δ + 1 Delta+1\Delta+1Δ+1 vertices has maximum degree Δ Î” Delta\DeltaΔ and chromatic number Δ + 1 Δ + 1 Delta+1\Delta+1Δ+1. Surprisingly, the upper bound of
Theorem 2.1 is also optimal even in the case of acyclic Borel graphs. Hence, for bounded degree Borel graphs, the Borel chromatic number and classical chromatic number may be very far apart since any acyclic graph has classical chromatic number at most 2 .
Theorem 2.2 (Marks [38]). For every finite Δ Î” Delta\DeltaΔ, there is an acyclic Borel graph of degree Δ Î” Delta\DeltaΔ with no Borel Δ Î” Delta\DeltaΔ-coloring.
The graphs used to establish Theorem 2.2 are quite natural, and arise from Schreier graphs of actions of free products of Δ Î” Delta\DeltaΔ many copies of Z / 2 Z Z / 2 Z Z//2Z\mathbb{Z} / 2 \mathbb{Z}Z/2Z. Theorem 2.2 is proved using Martin's theorem of Borel determinacy [41] which states that in any infinite two-player game of perfect information with a Borel payoff set, one of the two players has a winning strategy. The direct use of Borel determinacy to prove this theorem leads to an interesting question of reverse mathematics since Borel determinacy requires a great deal of set-theoretic power to prove: the use of uncountably many iterates of the powerset of R R R\mathbb{R}R [19]. We currently do not know of any simpler proof of Theorem 2.2 that avoids the use of Borel determinacy or can be proved in second-order arithmetic (which suffices for most theorems of descriptive set theory).
Problem 2.3. Is Theorem 2.2 provable in the theory Z 2 Z 2 Z_(2)\mathbf{Z}_{2}Z2 of full second-order arithmetic?
Recently, Brandt, Chang, Grebík, Grunau, Rozhoň, and Vidnyánszky [6] have shown that characterizing the set of Borel graphs of maximum degree Δ 3 Δ ≥ 3 Delta >= 3\Delta \geq 3Δ≥3 that have no Borel ( Δ + 1 ) ( Δ + 1 ) (Delta+1)(\Delta+1)(Δ+1)-coloring is as hard as possible in a precise sense: the set of such graphs is Σ 2 1 Σ 2 1 Sigma_(2)^(1)\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{2}^{1}Σ21 complete. Here Σ 2 1 Σ 2 1 Sigma_(2)^(1)\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{2}^{1}Σ21 completeness is a logical measurement of the complexity of this problem. The proof of their theorem combines the techniques of [39] with earlier work of Todorcevic and Vidnyánszky [48] proving Σ 2 1 Σ 2 1 Sigma_(2)^(1)\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{2}^{1}Σ21 completeness for the set of locally finite Borel graphs generated by a single function that have finite Borel chromatic number. In contrast to the work of [6] for Δ 3 Δ ≥ 3 Delta >= 3\Delta \geq 3Δ≥3, in the case Δ = 2 Δ = 2 Delta=2\Delta=2Δ=2, a dichotomy theorem of Carroy, Miller, Schrittesser, and Vidnyánszky [8] characterizes the 2-colorable Borel graphs in a simple way as those for which there is no Borel homomorphism from a canonical non-Borel-2-colorable graph known as L 0 L 0 L_(0)\mathbb{L}_{0}L0.
This type of theorem-proving it is hard to characterize the set of graphs with some combinatorial property-is familiar in finite graph theory via computational complexity theory. For example, it is a well-known theorem that the set of finite graphs that are k k kkk-colorable for k 3 k ≥ 3 k >= 3k \geq 3k≥3 is NP-complete. Indeed, there are some surprising newly found connections between computational complexity theory and complexity in measurable combinatorics. Thornton [47] has used techniques adapted from the celebrated CSP (constraint satisfaction problem) dichotomy theorem [7,51] in theoretical computer science to bootstrap the results of [6] to show many other natural combinatorial problems on locally finite Borel graphs are either Σ 2 1 Σ 2 1 Sigma_(2)^(1)\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{2}^{1}Σ21 complete or a Π 1 1 Π 1 1 Pi_(1)^(1)\boldsymbol{\Pi}_{1}^{1}Π11. The CSP dichotomy theorem concerns a certain class of natural problems in NP: general constraint satisfaction problems like graph coloring with k k kkk colors, k k kkk-SAT, or, more generally, computing the set of finite structures X X XXX that have a homomorphism to a given fixed finite structure D D DDD. The CSP dichotomy states that all
such constraint satisfaction problems are either in P P P\mathrm{P}P (like 2-coloring or 2-SAT), or they are NP-complete (like 3-coloring or 3-SAT).
The results in [6] rule out any simple theory for understanding Borel chromatic number for locally finite Borel graphs in general. In contrast, if we weaken our measurability condition to study μ μ mu\muμ-measurable colorings with respect to some Borel probability measure μ μ mu\muμ instead of Borel colorings, the theory of μ μ mu\muμ-measurable colorings appears to have a much closer connection to finite graph theory. If μ μ mu\muμ is a Borel measure on the vertex set of a Borel graph G G GGG, let χ μ ( G ) χ μ ( G ) chi_(mu)(G)\chi_{\mu}(G)χμ(G) be the least size of a set Y Y YYY so there is a μ μ mu\muμ-measurable coloring of G G GGG. So χ ( G ) χ μ ( G ) χ B ( G ) χ ( G ) ≤ χ μ ( G ) ≤ χ B ( G ) chi(G) <= chi_(mu)(G) <= chi_(B)(G)\chi(G) \leq \chi_{\mu}(G) \leq \chi_{B}(G)χ(G)≤χμ(G)≤χB(G), since every Borel function is μ μ mu\muμ-measurable.
For finite graphs of maximum degree Δ Î” Delta\DeltaΔ, a theorem of Brooks characterizes those connected graphs which have chromatic number of Δ + 1 Δ + 1 Delta+1\Delta+1Δ+1. They are precisely the complete graphs on Δ + 1 Δ + 1 Delta+1\Delta+1Δ+1 vertices, and odd cycles in the case Δ = 2 Δ = 2 Delta=2\Delta=2Δ=2. Analogously, we have the following generalization of Brooks's theorem for μ μ mu\muμ-measurable colorings:
Theorem 2.4 (Conley, Marks, Tucker-Drob [13]). Suppose that G G GGG is a Borel graph with degree bounded by a finite Δ 3 Δ ≥ 3 Delta >= 3\Delta \geq 3Δ≥3. Suppose further that G G GGG contains no complete graph on Δ + 1 Δ + 1 Delta+1\Delta+1Δ+1 vertices. If μ μ mu\muμ is any Borel probability measure on V ( G ) V ( G ) V(G)V(G)V(G), then G G GGG admits a μ μ mu\muμ measurable Δ Î” Delta\DeltaΔ-coloring.
Several important open problems in descriptive set theory concern whether there is a difference between being able to find a Borel solution to a problem versus being able to find a μ μ mu\muμ-measurable solution with respect to every Borel probability measure μ μ mu\muμ (e.g., the hyperfiniteness vs measure hyperfiniteness problem [29, PROBLEM 8.29]). Theorems 2.2 and 2.4 are encouraging in this context because they point the way towards tools that may be able to resolve these types of questions.
The proof of Theorem 2.4 is based on a technique for finding one-ended spanning subforests in Borel graphs: acyclic subgraphs on the same vertex set where each connected component has exactly one end. More recently, these techniques for finding one-ended spanning subforests were applied to prove new results in the theory of cost: a real valued invariant of countable groups arising from their ergodic actions [9].
Bernshteyn has substantially strengthened Theorem 2.4 by showing for k k kkk within a factor of Δ Î” sqrtDelta\sqrt{\Delta}Δ of Δ Î” Delta\DeltaΔ, there is a μ μ mu\muμ-measurable k k kkk-coloring of G G GGG if and only if there is any k k kkk-coloring of G G GGG.
Theorem 2.5 (Bernshteyn [2]). There is a Δ 0 Δ 0 Delta_(0)\Delta_{0}Δ0 so that if G G GGG is a Borel graph with finite maximum degree Δ Δ 0 Δ ≥ Δ 0 Delta >= Delta_(0)\Delta \geq \Delta_{0}Δ≥Δ0 and μ μ mu\muμ is a Borel probability measure on V ( G ) V ( G ) V(G)V(G)V(G), then if c c ccc satisfies c D 5 / 2 c ≤ D − 5 / 2 c <= sqrtD-5//2c \leq \sqrt{D}-5 / 2c≤D−5/2, then G G GGG has a ( Δ c ) ( Δ − c ) (Delta-c)(\Delta-c)(Δ−c)-coloring if and only if G G GGG has a μ μ mu\muμ-measurable ( Δ c ) ( Δ − c ) (Delta-c)(\Delta-c)(Δ−c) coloring.
The above results give cases where the μ μ mu\muμ-measurable chromatic number behaves similarly to the classical chromatic number. These two quantities may still differ by a large amount, however. Let F n F n F_(n)\mathbb{F}_{n}Fn be the free group on n n nnn generators and let S n F n S n ⊆ F n S_(n)subeF_(n)S_{n} \subseteq \mathbb{F}_{n}Sn⊆Fn be a free symmetric generating set. Let a n a n a_(n)a_{n}an be the action of F n F n F_(n)\mathbb{F}_{n}Fn on the space [ 0 , 1 ] F n [ 0 , 1 ] F n [0,1]^(F_(n))[0,1]^{\mathbb{F}_{n}}[0,1]Fn via the Bernoulli shift: ( γ x ) ( δ ) = x ( γ 1 δ ) ( γ â‹… x ) ( δ ) = x γ − 1 δ (gamma*x)(delta)=x(gamma^(-1)delta)(\gamma \cdot x)(\delta)=x\left(\gamma^{-1} \delta\right)(γ⋅x)(δ)=x(γ−1δ) restricted to its free part. Let G n = G ( a n , S n ) G n = G a n , S n G_(n)=G(a_(n),S_(n))G_{n}=G\left(a_{n}, S_{n}\right)Gn=G(an,Sn) be the Schreier graph
of this action, and let μ n = λ F n μ n = λ F n mu_(n)=lambda^(F_(n))\mu_{n}=\lambda^{\mathbb{F}_{n}}μn=λFn be the product of Lebesgue measure λ λ lambda\lambdaλ on [ 0 , 1 ] [ 0 , 1 ] [0,1][0,1][0,1]. Since G n G n G_(n)G_{n}Gn is acyclic, the classical chromatic number is χ ( G n ) = 2 χ G n = 2 chi(G_(n))=2\chi\left(G_{n}\right)=2χ(Gn)=2. However, χ μ n ( G n ) n log 2 n χ μ n G n ≥ n log ⁡ 2 n chi_(mu_(n))(G_(n)) >= (n)/(log 2n)\chi_{\mu_{n}}\left(G_{n}\right) \geq \frac{n}{\log 2 n}χμn(Gn)≥nlog⁡2n which can be shown using results about the size of independent sets in random (2n)-regular graphs and an ultraproduct argument. This argument was first suggested by [36]; see [30] for a detailed proof. Bernshteyn has recently proven an upper bound on χ μ n ( G n ) χ μ n G n chi_(mu_(n))(G_(n))\chi_{\mu_{n}}\left(G_{n}\right)χμn(Gn) which is within a factor of two of this lower bound [1]. However, it remains an open problem to compute the precise rate of growth of χ μ n ( G n ) χ μ n G n chi_(mu_(n))(G_(n))\chi_{\mu_{n}}\left(G_{n}\right)χμn(Gn).
Bernshteyn's Theorem 2.5 and the above upper bound on χ μ n ( G n ) χ μ n G n chi_(mu_(n))(G_(n))\chi_{\mu_{n}}\left(G_{n}\right)χμn(Gn) are based on an adaptation of the powerful Lovász Local Lemma (LLL) to the setting of measurable combinatorics. The LLL is a tool of probabilistic combinatorics which can show the existence of objects which are described by constraints that are local in the sense that each constraint is independent of all but a small number of other constraints, and each constraint has a high probability of being satisfied. Precisely, the symmetric L L L L L L LLLL L LLLL states that if A 1 , , A n A 1 , … , A n A_(1),dots,A_(n)A_{1}, \ldots, A_{n}A1,…,An are events in a probability space which each occur with probability at most p p ppp, each event A i A i A_(i)A_{i}Ai is independent of all but at most d d ddd of the other events, and e p ( d + 1 ) 1 e p ( d + 1 ) ≤ 1 ep(d+1) <= 1e p(d+1) \leq 1ep(d+1)≤1, then there is a positive probability none of these events occur.
The LLL is a pure existence result, and since the desired object typically exists with exponentially small probability, it was a major open problem to find an algorithmic way to quickly find satisfying assignments where none of the events A 1 , , A n A 1 , … , A n A_(1),dots,A_(n)A_{1}, \ldots, A_{n}A1,…,An happen. In particular, a naive attempt to randomly sample from the probability distribution until a solution is found would take at least exponential time. In a breakthrough result in 2009, Moser and Tardos [42] gave an efficient randomized algorithm that can quickly compute satisfying assignments for the LLL.
Adaptations of the Moser-Tardos algorithm and the LLL to the setting of measurable combinatorics began with work of Kun [33], who used a version of the Moser-Tardos algorithm to find spanning subforests to prove a strengthening of the Gaboriau-Lyons [20] theorem in ergodic theory. More recently, Csoka, Grabowski, Mathe, Pikhurko, and Tyros [14] have proved a Borel version of the symmetric LLL for Borel graphs of subexponential growth, and Bernshteyn has proved μ μ mu\muμ-measurable versions for Bernoulli shifts of groups, and probability measure preserving Borel graphs [ 1 , 2 ] [ 1 , 2 ] [1,2][1,2][1,2]. These results, combined with the large literature in combinatorics using the LLL to construct colorings of graphs, are the main tool in the proof of Theorem 2.5 .
It is known that there cannot be a Borel version of the symmetric LLL for bounded degree Borel graphs in general [12]. Indeed, the existence of such a theorem combined with standard coloring techniques using the LLL would contradict Theorem 2.2. However, an interesting special case remains open: a Borel version of the symmetric LLL for Borel Schreier graphs generated by Borel actions of amenable groups, which are defined in the next section. Such a version of the local lemma could be a useful tool for making progress on the open problems discussed in the next section.
The theorems we have described above are a small selection of what is now known about measurable chromatic numbers. We hope they give the reader some sense of the variety of results and tools of the subject.

3. CONNECTIONS WITH HYPERFINITENESS

A major research program in modern descriptive set theory has been to understand the relative complexity of equivalence relations under Borel reducibility. Precisely, if E E EEE and F F FFF are equivalence relations on standard Borel spaces X X XXX and Y Y YYY, say that E E EEE is Borel reducible to F F FFF if there is a Borel function f : X Y f : X → Y f:X rarr Yf: X \rightarrow Yf:X→Y such that for all x , y X x , y ∈ X x,y in Xx, y \in Xx,y∈X, we have x E y f ( x ) F f ( y ) x E y ⟺ f ( x ) F f ( y ) xEy Longleftrightarrow f(x)Ff(y)x E y \Longleftrightarrow f(x) F f(y)xEy⟺f(x)Ff(y). Such a function induces a definable injection from X / E X / E X//EX / EX/E to Y / F Y / F Y//FY / FY/F. If we think of E E EEE and F F FFF as classification problems, this means E E EEE is simpler than F F FFF in the sense that any invariants that can be used to classify F F FFF can also be used to classify E E EEE. In the study of Borel reducibility of equivalence relations, there has been success both in understanding the abstract structure of all Borel equivalence relations under Borel reducibility, and also in proving particular nonclassification results of interest to working mathematicians. For example, Hjorth's theory of turbulence [26] gives a precise dichotomy for when an equivalence relation generated by a Polish group action can be classified by invariants that are countable structures, and turbulence has been applied to prove nonclassifiability results in C C ∗ C^(**)C^{*}C∗ algebras [18].
A Borel equivalence relation E E EEE is said to be countable if every E E EEE-class is countable. The countable Borel equivalence relations are an important and well-studied subclass of Borel equivalence relations with rich connections with operator algebras and ergodic theory. One reason for this is the Feldman-Moore theorem [31, THEOREM 1.3], which states that every countable Borel equivalence relation is induced by a Borel action of a countable group. Results proved about the dynamics of measure preserving actions of countable groups have played a played an important role in our understanding of the theory of countable Borel equivalence relations.
Understanding how the descriptive-set-theoretic complexity of countable Borel equivalence relations is related to the dynamics of the group actions that generate them is a deep problem. An important simplicity notion for Borel reducibility is hyperfiniteness: a Borel equivalence relation is hyperfinite if it can be written as an increasing union of Borel equivalence relations whose classes are all finite. The hyperfinite equivalence relations are the simplest nontrivial class of Borel equivalence relations as made precise by the Glimm-Effros dichotomy of Harrington, Kechris, and Louveau [25]. Weiss has asked if the group-theoretic notion of amenability precisely corresponds to hyperfiniteness:
Problem 3.1 (Weiss, [50]). Suppose E E EEE is a Borel equivalence relation generated by a Borel action of a countable amenable group. Is E E EEE hyperfinite?
Amenability was defined by von Neumann in reaction to the Banach-Tarski paradox. It is a group-theoretic notion of dynamical tameness. Precisely, a group Γ Î“ Gamma\GammaΓ is amenable if and only if for every ε > 0 ε > 0 epsi > 0\varepsilon>0ε>0 and every finite S Γ S ⊆ Γ S sube GammaS \subseteq \GammaS⊆Γ there exists some nonempty finite F Γ F ⊆ Γ F sube GammaF \subseteq \GammaF⊆Γ such that | S F F | / | F | < ε | S F â–³ F | / | F | < ε |SF/_\F|//|F| < epsi|S F \triangle F| /|F|<\varepsilon|SFâ–³F|/|F|<ε. Such an F F FFF is called an ( ε , S ) ( ε , S ) (epsi,S)(\varepsilon, S)(ε,S)-Følner set. Examples of amenable groups include finite, abelian, and solvable groups, while the free group on two generators is nonamenable. If Weiss's question has a positive answer, then amenability precisely characterizes hyperfiniteness since every nonamenable group has a nonhyperfinite Borel action.
Evidence that Weiss's question has a positive answer is given by a theorem in ergodic theory of Ornstein and Weiss [43] that every measure preserving action of an amenable group on a standard probability space is hyperfinite modulo a nullset.
Progress on Weiss's question has grown out of progress on the problem of finding Borel tilings of group actions by Følner sets. Precisely, if a : Γ X a : Γ ↷ X a:Gamma↷Xa: \Gamma \curvearrowright Xa:Γ↷X is an action of a finitely generated group Γ Î“ Gamma\GammaΓ, and F 1 , , F n Γ F 1 , … , F n ⊆ Γ F_(1),dots,F_(n)sube GammaF_{1}, \ldots, F_{n} \subseteq \GammaF1,…,Fn⊆Γ are finite subsets of Γ Î“ Gamma\GammaΓ, a tiling of a a aaa by the shapes F 1 , , F n F 1 , … , F n F_(1),dots,F_(n)F_{1}, \ldots, F_{n}F1,…,Fn is a collection of subsets A 1 , , A n X A 1 , … , A n ⊆ X A_(1),dots,A_(n)sube XA_{1}, \ldots, A_{n} \subseteq XA1,…,An⊆X so that the sets F 1 A 1 , , F n A n F 1 â‹… A 1 , … , F n â‹… A n F_(1)*A_(1),dots,F_(n)*A_(n)F_{1} \cdot A_{1}, \ldots, F_{n} \cdot A_{n}F1â‹…A1,…,Fnâ‹…An are pairwise disjoint and form a partition of X X XXX. Finding tilings of a group action can be thought of as a generalized coloring problem or constraint satisfaction problem of the type often studied in measurable combinatorics, and can be approached using many of the same tools. For example, Jackson, Kechris, and Louveau [27] have shown that Weiss's question has a positive answer for groups of polynomial volume growth. Their argument uses Voronoi regions around Borel maximal independent sets to make Borel tilings with desirable properties. Gao and Jackson [21] have shown that Weiss's question has a positive answer for abelian groups. Their argument centers around a more refined inductive argument to find tilings of Z n Z n Z^(n)\mathbb{Z}^{n}Zn by hyperrectangles. These tilings are found by iteratively adjusting the location of the boundaries of hyperrectangular tiles that cover the space until their parallel boundaries are far apart. Schneider and Seward have extended Gao and Jackson's machinery to all locally nilpotent groups [45]. All these tilings are the building blocks out of which witnesses to hyperfiniteness are constructed.
A positive answer to the following open problem would be progress towards a positive solution to Weiss's question:
Problem 3.2. Let Γ Î“ Gamma\GammaΓ be an amenable group with finite symmetric generating set S S SSS and a : Γ X a : Γ ↷ X a:Gamma↷Xa: \Gamma \curvearrowright Xa:Γ↷X be a free Borel action of a a aaa on a standard Borel space X X XXX. For every ε > 0 ε > 0 epsi > 0\varepsilon>0ε>0, do there exist ( ε , S ) ( ε , S ) (epsi,S)(\varepsilon, S)(ε,S)-Følner sets F 1 , , F n Γ F 1 , … , F n ⊆ Γ F_(1),dots,F_(n)sube GammaF_{1}, \ldots, F_{n} \subseteq \GammaF1,…,Fn⊆Γ such that the action a a aaa has a Borel tiling with shapes F 1 , , F n F 1 , … , F n F_(1),dots,F_(n)F_{1}, \ldots, F_{n}F1,…,Fn ?
The existence of such tilings without any measurability conditions was only recently established by Downarowicz, Huczek, and Zhang [15]. A key step in their proof is to use Hall's matching theorem to match untiled points in a Ornstein-Weiss style quasitiling [43] to construct an exact tiling. Recall that if G = ( V , E ) G = ( V , E ) G=(V,E)G=(V, E)G=(V,E) is a graph, a perfect matching of G G GGG is a subset M E M ⊆ E M sube EM \subseteq EM⊆E of edges so that each vertex x V x ∈ V x in Vx \in Vx∈V is incident to exactly one edge in M M MMM. Hall's matching theorem states that a bipartite graph with bipartition A , B V A , B ⊆ V A,B sube VA, B \subseteq VA,B⊆V has a perfect matching if and only if for every finite set F A F ⊆ A F sube AF \subseteq AF⊆A or F B F ⊆ B F sube BF \subseteq BF⊆B,
| N ( F ) | | F | | N ( F ) | ≥ | F | |N(F)| >= |F||N(F)| \geq|F||N(F)|≥|F|
Recently, Problem 3.2 has been shown to have a positive answer modulo a nullset [10]. A key part of the proof is a measurable matching result proved using an idea of Lyons and Nazarov [36] that was originally used to find factor of i.i.d. perfect matchings of regular trees. Lyons and Nazarov's argument uses the Hungarian matching algorithm (repeatedly flipping augmenting paths) to show that if a bipartite Borel graph G G GGG satisfies a certain measure-
theoretic expansion condition strengthening Hall's condition, then it has a measurable perfect matching.
Conley, Jackson, Marks, Seward, and Tucker-Drob have proven the following:
Theorem 3.3 (Conley, Jackson, Marks, Seward, Tucker-Drob [11]). Let Γ Î“ Gamma\GammaΓ be a countable group admitting a normal series where each quotient of consecutive terms is a finite group or a torsion-free abelian group with finite Q Q Q\mathbb{Q}Q-rank, except that the top quotient can be any group of uniform local polynomial volume-growth or the lamplighter group Z 2 Z Z 2 ≺ Z Z_(2)-<Z\mathbb{Z}_{2} \prec \mathbb{Z}Z2≺Z. Then every free Borel action of Γ Î“ Gamma\GammaΓ is hyperfinite.
By combining this with prior work of Seward and Schneider [45, coR. 8.2] they obtain the following corollary:
Corollary 3.4. Weiss's question has a positive answer for polycyclic groups.
This is the best partial result on Weiss's question that is currently known. Significantly, Corollary 3.4 applies to groups of exponential volume growth such as certain semidirect products of Z n Z n Z^(n)\mathbb{Z}^{n}Zn. All the previous work on Weiss's question applied only to groups locally of polynomial volume growth, and this seemed an inherent limitation to previous methods.
The central idea of [11] is to adapt the machinery of Gromov's theory of asymptotic dimension of groups to the setting of descriptive set theory, making a theory of Borel asymptotic dimension. These ideas were implicitly hidden in all previous work on Weiss's question, but were first made explicit in [11]. Asymptotic dimension was introduced by Gromov as a quasiisometry invariant of metric spaces, used to study geometric group theory. The asymptotic dimension of a metric space ( X , ρ ) ( X , ρ ) (X,rho)(X, \rho)(X,ρ) is the least d d ddd such that for every r > 0 r > 0 r > 0r>0r>0 there is a uniformly bounded cover U U UUU of X X XXX so that every closed r r rrr-ball intersects at most d + 1 d + 1 d+1d+1d+1 sets in U U UUU. Essentially, asymptotic dimension is a "large-scale" analogue of Lebesgue covering dimension. There are actually several different ways to define asymptotic dimension whose equivalences are nontrivial to prove. Proving that these different definitions still define the same notion in the Borel context is one of the keys to the work in [11]. Alternate definitions allow the conversion between Voronoi cell-type tilings patterned on the work of Jackson, Kechris, and Louveau, and covers with far apart facial boundaries pioneered by Gao and Jackson.
Resolving Weiss's question for all amenable groups appears to be a difficult problem. In general, we have a poor understanding of the geometry and structure of Følner sets in arbitrary amenable groups. Problem 3.1 for arbitrary amenable groups seems to either require significant advances in our geometric understanding of amenable groups, or completely different descriptive-set theoretic tools for attacking the hyperfiniteness problem. One question which gets at the heart of this difficulty is the following:
Problem 3.5. Suppose G G GGG is a bounded degree Borel graph having uniformly bounded polynomial growth. Is the connectedness relation of G G GGG hyperfinite?
The obstacle in resolving Problem 3.5 is that while polynomial growth groups have tight both upper and lower bound on their growth, Problem 3.5 only posits an upper bound on the growth of G G GGG, which may consequently have much less uniformity in its growth than the Schreier graph associated to an action of a polynomial growth group. This lack of a lower bound on growth means that the techniques of Jackson, Kechris, and Louveau for proving hyperfiniteness of groups of polynomial growth cannot resolve Problem 3.5 Finding techniques for resolving Problem 3.5 where there is far less regular geometric structure would be one way of making progress towards resolving Weiss's question in general since we know little about any regular geometric structure in arbitrary amenable groups.

4. MEASURABLE EQUIDECOMPOSITIONS

If a : Γ X a : Γ ↷ X a:Gamma↷Xa: \Gamma \curvearrowright Xa:Γ↷X is an action of a group Γ Î“ Gamma\GammaΓ on a space X X XXX, then we say sets A , B X A , B ⊆ X A,B sube XA, B \subseteq XA,B⊆X are a-equidecomposable if there are a finite partition { A 0 , , A n } A 0 , … , A n {A_(0),dots,A_(n)}\left\{A_{0}, \ldots, A_{n}\right\}{A0,…,An} of A A AAA and group elements γ 0 , , γ n Γ Î³ 0 , … , γ n ∈ Γ gamma_(0),dots,gamma_(n)in Gamma\gamma_{0}, \ldots, \gamma_{n} \in \Gammaγ0,…,γn∈Γ so that γ 0 A 0 , , γ n A n γ 0 A 0 , … , γ n A n gamma_(0)A_(0),dots,gamma_(n)A_(n)\gamma_{0} A_{0}, \ldots, \gamma_{n} A_{n}γ0A0,…,γnAn is a partition of B B BBB. For example, in this language, the Banach-Tarski paradox says that one unit ball is equidecomposable with two unit balls under the group action of isometries of R 3 R 3 R^(3)\mathbb{R}^{3}R3. In the last few years several new results proved about these types of geometrical paradoxes with the unifying theme that the "paradoxical" sets in many classical geometrical paradoxes can surprisingly be much nicer than one would naively expect.
A classical generalization of the Banach-Tarski paradox states that any two bounded sets A , B R 3 A , B ⊆ R 3 A,B subeR^(3)A, B \subseteq \mathbb{R}^{3}A,B⊆R3 with nonempty interior are equidecomposable. Of course, the pieces used in these equidecompositions must be nonmeasurable in general, since A A AAA and B B BBB may have different measure. However, a remarkable theorem of Grabowski, Máthé, and Pikhurko states that there is always an equidecomposition using measurable sets when A A AAA and B B BBB have the same Lebesgue measure.
Theorem 4.1 (Grabowski, Máthé, Pikhurko [24]). If A , B R 3 A , B ⊆ R 3 A,B subeR^(3)A, B \subseteq \mathbb{R}^{3}A,B⊆R3 are bounded sets with nonempty interior and if additionally A A AAA and B B BBB are assumed to have the same Lebesgue measure, then A A AAA and B B BBB can be equidecomposed using Lebesgue measurable pieces.
It is an open problem whether Theorem 4.1 can be strengthened to yield a Borel equidecomposition, assuming A A AAA and B B BBB are Borel.
Key to Theorem 4.1 and other advances in measurable equidecompositions has been progress made on measurable matching problems. The connection comes from the following graph-theoretic reformulation of equidecompositions as perfect matchings. Let a : Γ X a : Γ ↷ X a:Gamma↷Xa: \Gamma \curvearrowright Xa:Γ↷X be a Borel action of a group Γ Î“ Gamma\GammaΓ on a space X X XXX, let A , B , X A , B , ⊆ X A,B,sube XA, B, \subseteq XA,B,⊆X be subsets of X X XXX, and let S Γ S ⊆ Γ S sube GammaS \subseteq \GammaS⊆Γ be finite. Let G ( A , B , S ) G ( A , B , S ) G(A,B,S)G(A, B, S)G(A,B,S) be the graph whose set of vertices is the disjoint union A B A ⊔ B A⊔BA \sqcup BA⊔B and where x A x ∈ A x in Ax \in Ax∈A and Y B Y ∈ B Y in BY \in BY∈B are adjacent if there is a γ S γ ∈ S gamma in S\gamma \in Sγ∈S so that γ x = y γ â‹… x = y gamma*x=y\gamma \cdot x=yγ⋅x=y. Then it is easy to see that A , B A , B A,BA, BA,B are equidecomposable using group elements from S S SSS if and only if there is a perfect matching of the graph G ( A , B , S ) G ( A , B , S ) G(A,B,S)G(A, B, S)G(A,B,S).
Theorem 4.1 and other new results about measurable equidecompositions rely on combining process made on measurable matching problems with modern results about the
dynamics of the group actions being studied. For example, Theorem 4.1 uses the local spectral gap of Boutonnet, Ioana, and Salehi Golsefidy [5] for certain lattices in the group S O 3 ( R ) S O 3 ( R ) SO_(3)(R)\mathrm{SO}_{3}(\mathbb{R})SO3(R) of rotations in R 3 R 3 R^(3)\mathbb{R}^{3}R3. This result is used to check that the graph G ( A , B , S ) G ( A , B , S ) G(A,B,S)G(A, B, S)G(A,B,S) satisfies the expansion condition of Lyons and Nazarov [36] which ensures the existence of a measurable matching.
Some other recent theorems about measurable equidecompositions concern Tarski's famous circle squaring problem from 1925: the question of whether a disk and square of the same area in R 2 R 2 R^(2)\mathbb{R}^{2}R2 are equidecomposable by isometries. Tarski's circle squaring problem arose from the fact that the analogue of the Banach-Tarski paradox is false in R 2 R 2 R^(2)\mathbb{R}^{2}R2. This is because there are so-called Banach measures in R 2 R 2 R^(2)\mathbb{R}^{2}R2 : finitely additive isometry-invariant measures that extend Lebesgue measure. Their existence is proved using the amenability of the isometry group of R 2 R 2 R^(2)\mathbb{R}^{2}R2. Hence, if Lebesgue measurable sets A , B R 2 A , B ⊆ R 2 A,B subeR^(2)A, B \subseteq \mathbb{R}^{2}A,B⊆R2 are equidecomposable, they must have the same Lebesgue measure. The real thrust of Tarski's circle squaring problem is the converse of this: the general problem of to what extent there is an equivalence between equidecomposability and having the same measure.
In 1990, Laczkovich [34] (see also [35]) gave a positive answer to Tarski's circle squaring problem using the Axiom of Choice. His proof involved sophisticated tools from Diophantine approximation and discrepancy theory to prove strong quantitative bounds on the ergodic theorem for translation actions of the torus, as well as the graph-theoretic approach to equidecomposition described above.
Marks and Unger have shown that there is a Borel solution to Tarski's circle squaring problem, building on an earlier result of Grabowski, Máthé, and Pikhurko, [23] that the circle can be squared using Lebesgue measurable pieces.
Theorem 4.2 (Marks, Unger [40]). Tarski's circle squaring problem has a positive solution using Borel pieces. More generally, for all n 1 n ≥ 1 n >= 1n \geq 1n≥1, if A , B R n A , B ⊆ R n A,B subeR^(n)A, B \subseteq \mathbb{R}^{n}A,B⊆Rn are bounded Borel sets with the same positive Lebesgue measure whose boundaries have upper Minkowski dimension less than n, then A and B are equidecomposable using Borel pieces.
Hence, for Borel sets whose boundaries are not wildly fractal, having the same measure is actually equivalent to having an explicitly definable Borel equidecomposition.
Theorem 4.2 uses new techniques for constructing Borel perfect matchings in Borel graphs based on first finding a real-valued Borel flow as an intermediate step. Precisely, if f : V R f : V → R f:V rarrRf: V \rightarrow \mathbb{R}f:V→R is a function on the vertices of a graph G G GGG, then an f f fff-flow on G G GGG is a real-valued function ϕ Ï• phi\phiÏ• on the edges of G G GGG such that ϕ ( x , y ) = ϕ ( y , x ) Ï• ( x , y ) = − Ï• ( y , x ) phi(x,y)=-phi(y,x)\phi(x, y)=-\phi(y, x)Ï•(x,y)=−ϕ(y,x) for every directed edge ( x , y ) ( x , y ) (x,y)(x, y)(x,y) of G G GGG, and such that for every x V x ∈ V x in Vx \in Vx∈V the flow ϕ Ï• phi\phiÏ• satisfies Kirchoff's law,
f ( x ) = y N ( x ) ϕ ( x , y ) f ( x ) = ∑ y ∈ N ( x )   Ï• ( x , y ) f(x)=sum_(y in N(x))phi(x,y)f(x)=\sum_{y \in N(x)} \phi(x, y)f(x)=∑y∈N(x)Ï•(x,y)
Given a circle and square A , B [ 0 , 1 ) 2 A , B ⊆ [ 0 , 1 ) 2 A,B sube[0,1)^(2)A, B \subseteq[0,1)^{2}A,B⊆[0,1)2 of the same area, the first step in the proof of Theorem 4.2 is finding an explicit ( 1 A 1 B ) 1 A − 1 B (1_(A)-1_(B))\left(1_{A}-1_{B}\right)(1A−1B)-flow of an appropriate Borel graph whose vertices are all the elements of [ 0 , 1 ) 2 [ 0 , 1 ) 2 [0,1)^(2)[0,1)^{2}[0,1)2 and whose edges are generated by finitely many translations.
The advantage of working with the generality of flows is twofold. First, a flow can be constructed in countably many steps, making the error in Kirchoff's law above continuously approach 0 whereas the error in a partial matching that makes it imperfect is discrete. Second, the average of f f fff-flows is an f f fff-flow and so it is possible to integrate families of definable flows to get another definable flow. Finally, there are well known combinatorial equivalences between flows and matchings which are used in the last step of the proof of Theorem 4.2 to "round" a real-valued flow into an integer valued flow and then use it to construct a matching.
Another key ingredient in the proof of Theorem 4.2 is the hyperfiniteness of Borel actions of abelian groups. In particular, the proof of Theorem 4.2 uses a recent refinement due to Gao, Jackson, Krohne, and Seward [22] of Gao and Jackson's [21] theorem that Borel actions of abelian groups are hyperfinite. These witnesses to hyperfiniteness are used to ensure that the Ford-Fulkerson algorithm converges when it is used to round the Borel realvalued flow described above into a Borel integer-valued flow.
This flow approach to equidecomposition problems may be useful for attacking other open questions such as the Borel-Ruziewicz problem:
Problem 4.3 (Wagon [49]). Suppose n 2 n ≥ 2 n >= 2n \geq 2n≥2. Is Lebesgue measure the unique finitely additive rotation invariant probability measure defined on the Borel subsets of the n n nnn-sphere S n S n S^(n)S^{n}Sn ?
This question is inspired by a theorem of Margulis [37] and Sullivan [46] ( n 4 ) n ≥ 4 ) n >= 4)n \geq 4)n≥4), and Drinfeld [16] ( n = 2 , 3 ) ( n = 2 , 3 ) (n=2,3)(n=2,3)(n=2,3), who proved that Lebesgue measure is the unique finitely additive rotation invariant measure on the Lebesgue measurable subsets of S n S n S^(n)S^{n}Sn. Wagon's proposed strengthening would be a more natural result since the Borel sets are the canonical σ σ sigma\sigmaσ-algebra to measure.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author would like to thank Alekos Kechris for helpful discussions.

FUNDING

This author is partially supported by NSF grant DMS-2054182.

REFERENCES

[1] A. Bernshteyn, Measurable versions of the Lovász Local Lemma and measurable graph colorings. Adv. Math. 353 (2019), 153-223.
[2] A. Bernshteyn, Distributed algorithms, the Lovász local lemma, and descriptive combinatorics. 2020, arXiv:2004.04905.
[3] A. Bernshteyn, Probabilistic constructions in continuous combinatorics and a bridge to distributed algorithms. 2021, arXiv:2102.08797.
[4] A. Bernshteyn, A fast distributed algorithm for ( Δ + 1 ) ( Δ + 1 ) (Delta+1)(\Delta+1)(Δ+1)-edge-coloring. J. Combin. Theory Ser. B B BBB (2022).
[5] R. Boutonnet, A. Ioana, and A. Salehi Golsefidy, Local spectral gap in simple Lie groups and applications. Invent. Math. 208 (2017), no. 3, 715-802.
[6] S. Brandt, Y. Chang, J. Grebík, C. Grunau, V. Rozhoň, and Z. Vidnyánszky, On homomorphism graphs. 2021, arXiv:2111.03683.
[7] A. Bulatov, A dichotomy theorem for nonuniform CSPs. In 2017 IEEE 58th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pp. 319-330, IEEE, 2017.
[8] R. Carroy, B. Miller, D. Schrittesser, and Z. Vidnyánszky, Minimal definable graphs of definable chromatic number at least three. Forum Math. Sigma E7 (2021), no. 9, 1-16.
[9] C. T. Conley, D. Gaboriau, A. S. Marks, and R. D. Tucker-Drob, One-ended spanning subforests and treeability of groups. 2021, arXiv:2104.07431.
[10] C. T. Conley, S. Jackson, D. Kerr, A. S. Marks, B. Seward, and R. D. TuckerDrob, Følner tilings for actions of amenable groups. Math. Ann. 371 (2018), 663-683.
[11] C. T. Conley, S. Jackson, A. S. Marks, B. Seward, and R. D. Tucker-Drob, Borel asymptotic dimension and hyperfinite equivalence relations. 2000, arXiv:2009.06721.
[12] C. T. Conley, S. Jackson, A. S. Marks, B. Seward, and R. D. Tucker-Drob, Hyperfiniteness and Borel combinatorics. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) 22 (2020), no. 3, 877-892.
[13] C. T. Conley, A. S. Marks, and R. D. Tucker-Drob, Brooks's theorem for measurable colorings. Forum Math. Sigma 4 (2016).
[14] E. Csóka, Ł. Grabowski, A. Máthé, O. Pikhurko, and K. Tyros, Borel version of the local lemma. 2016, arXiv:1605.04877.
[15] T. Downarowicz, D. Huczek, and G. Zhang, Tilings of amenable groups. J. Reine Angew. Math. 747 (2009).
[16] V. G. Drinfeld, Finitely-additive measures on S 2 S 2 S^(2)S^{2}S2 and S 3 S 3 S^(3)S^{3}S3, invariant with respect to rotations. Funktsional. Anal. i Prilozhen. 18 (1984), no. 3, 77.
[17] G. Elek, Qualitative graph limit theory, Cantor dynamical systems and constanttime distributed algorithms. 2018, arXiv:1812.07511.
[18] I. Farah, Logic and operator algebras. In Proceedings of the Seoul ICM, vol. II, edited by Sun Young Jang et al., pp. 15-39, Kyung Moon SA, 2004.
[19] H. Friedman, Higher set theory and mathematical practice. Ann. Math. Logic 2 (1971), no. 3, 245-266.
[20] D. Gaboriau and R. Lyons, A measurable-group-theoretic solution to von Neumann's problem. Invent. Math. 177 (2009), 533-540.
[21] S. Gao and S. Jackson, Countable abelian group actions and hyperfinite equivalence relations. Invent. Math. 201 (2015), no. 1, 309-383.
[22] S. Gao, S. Jackson, E. Krohne, and B. Seward, Forcing constructions and countable Borel equivalence relations. 2015, arXiv:1503.07822.
[23] L. Grabowski, A. Máthé, and O. Pikhurko, Measurable circle squaring. Ann. of Math. (2) 185 (2017), 671-710.
[24] L. Grabowski, A. Máthé, and O. Pikhurko, Measurable equidecompositions for group actions with an expansion property. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (to appear).
[25] L. Harrington, A. S. Kechris, and A. Louveau, A Glimm-Effros dichotomy for Borel equivalence relations. J. Amer. Math. Soc. 3 (1990), no. 4, 903-928.
[26] G. Hjorth, Classification and orbit equivalence relations. Math. Surveys Monogr. 75, American Math Society, 2000.
[27] S. Jackson, A. S. Kechris, and A. Louveau, Countable Borel equivalence relations. J. Math. Log. 2 (2002), 1-80.
[28] A. S. Kechris, Classical descriptive set theory. Grad. Texts in Math. 156, Springer, New York, 1995.
[29] A. S. Kechris, The theory of countable Borel equivalence relations. 2021. URL http://math.caltech.edu/ kechris/papers/lectures%20on%20CBER08book.pdf, preprint.
[30] A. S. Kechris and A. S. Marks, Descriptive graph combinatorics. 2020. URL http://www.math.caltech.edu/ kechris, preprint.
[31] A. S. Kechris and B. D. Miller, Topics in orbit equivalence. Lecture Notes in Math. 1852, Springer, Berlin, 2004.
[32] A. S. Kechris, S. Solecki, and S. Todorcevic, Borel chromatic numbers. Adv. Math. 141 (1999), 1-44.
[33] G. Kun, Expanders have a spanning Lipschitz subgraph with large girth. 2013, arXiv:1303.4982.
[34] M. Laczkovich, Equidecomposability and discrepancy; a solution of Tarski's circle-squaring problem. J. Reine Angew. Math. 404 (1990), 77-117.
[35] M. Laczkovich, Decomposition of sets with small boundary. J. Lond. Math. Soc. 46 (1992), 58-64.
[36] R. Lyons and F. Nazarov, Perfect matchings as IID factors of non-amenable groups. European J. Combin. 32 (2011), 1115-1125.
[37] G. A. Margulis, Some remarks on invariant means. Montash. Math. 90 (1980), no. 3, 233-235.
[38] A. S. Marks, A determinacy approach to Borel combinatorics. J. Amer. Math. Soc. 29 (2016), 579-600.
[39] A. S. Marks, Uniformity, universality, and computability theory. J. Math. Log. 17 (2017), no. 1 .
[40] A. Marks and S. Unger, Borel circle squaring. Ann. of Math. (2) 186 (2017), 581 605 581 − 605 581-605581-605581−605.
[41] D. A. Martin, Borel determinacy. Ann. of Math. (2) 102 (1975), 363-371.
[42] R. Moser and G. Tardos, A constructive proof of the general Lovász Local Lemma. J. ACM 57 (2010), no. 2.
[43] D. Ornstein and B. Weiss, Ergodic theory and amenable group actions, I: the Rohlin lemma. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 2 (1980), 161-164.
[44] O. Pikhurko, Borel combinatorics of locally finite graphs. In Surveys in combinatorics 2021, edited by K. K. Dabrowski et al., the invited volume of the 28th British Combinatorial Conference, pp. 267-319, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., Cambridge University Press, 2021.
[45] S. Schneider and B. Seward, Locally nilpotent groups and hyperfinite equivalence relations. 2013, arXiv:1308.5853.
[46] D. Sullivan, For n > 3 n > 3 n > 3n>3n>3 there is only one finitely additive rotationally invariant measure on the n n nnn-sphere defined on all Lebesgue measurable subsets. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 4 (1981), no. 1, 121-123.
[47] R. Thornton, The CSP dichotomy and Borel combinatorics. 2021, preprint.
[48] S. Todorcevic and Z. Vidnyanszky, A complexity problem for Borel graphs. Invent. Math. 226 (2021), 225-249.
[49] S. Wagon, The Banach Tarski paradox. University Press, Cambridge, 1986.
[50] B. Weiss, Measurable dynamics. Contemp. Math. 26 (1984), 395-421.
[51] D. Zhuk, A proof of the CSP dichotomy conjecture. In 2017 IEEE 58th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pp. 331-342, IEEE, 2017.

ANDREW S. MARKS

UCLA Mathematics, BOX 951555, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1555, USA, marks@math.ucla.edu

THE PARIS-HARRINGTON PRINCIPLE AND SECOND-ORDER ARITHMETIC-BRIDGING THE FINITE AND INFINITE RAMSEY THEOREM

KEITA YOKOYAMA

ABSTRACT

The Paris-Harrington principle ( P H ) ( P H ) (PH)(\mathrm{PH})(PH) is known as one of the earliest examples of "mathematical" statements independent from the standard axiomatization of natural numbers called Peano Arithmetic (PA). In this article, we discuss various variations of P H P H PH\mathrm{PH}PH and examine the relations between finite and infinite Ramsey's theorem and systems of arithmetic.

MATHEMATICS SUBJECT CLASSIFICATION 2020

Primary 03F30; Secondary 03F35, 03B30, 05D10

KEYWORDS

Paris-Harrington principle, Ramsey's theorem, reverse mathematics, proof theory

1. INTRODUCTION

To prove a statement about natural numbers, we usually rely explicitly or implicitly on reasoning by mathematical induction. In the setting of mathematical logic, the axiomatic system for natural numbers consists of the axioms for discrete ordered semirings and the scheme of mathematical induction, which is known as Peano Arithmetic (PA). Within PA, one can prove many theorems in number theory or finite combinatorics, such as the existence of infinitely many prime numbers or the following finite Ramsey theorem (FRT):
(FRT) For any n , k , m , a N n , k , m , a ∈ N n,k,m,a inNn, k, m, a \in \mathbb{N}n,k,m,a∈N, there exists b N b ∈ N b inNb \in \mathbb{N}b∈N such that for any f : [ [ a , b ) N ] n k f : [ a , b ) N n → k f:[[a,b)_(N)]^(n)rarr kf:\left[[a, b)_{\mathbb{N}}\right]^{n} \rightarrow kf:[[a,b)N]n→k there exist H [ a , b ) N H ⊆ [ a , b ) N H sube[a,b)_(N)H \subseteq[a, b)_{\mathbb{N}}H⊆[a,b)N and c < k c < k c < kc<kc<k such that [ H ] n f 1 ( c ) [ H ] n ⊆ f − 1 ( c ) [H]^(n)subef^(-1)(c)[H]^{n} \subseteq f^{-1}(c)[H]n⊆f−1(c) and | H | = m | H | = m |H|=m|H|=m|H|=m.
(Here, [ a , b ) N = { x N : a x < b } [ a , b ) N = { x ∈ N : a ≤ x < b } [a,b)_(N)={x inN:a <= x < b}[a, b)_{\mathbb{N}}=\{x \in \mathbb{N}: a \leq x<b\}[a,b)N={x∈N:a≤x<b} and [ X ] n = { F X : | F | = n } [ X ] n = { F ⊆ X : | F | = n } [X]^(n)={F sube X:|F|=n}[X]^{n}=\{F \subseteq X:|F|=n\}[X]n={F⊆X:|F|=n} where | F | | F | |F||F||F| denotes the cardinality of F F FFF. We write k k kkk for the set [ 0 , k ) N [ 0 , k ) N [0,k)_(N)[0, k)_{\mathbb{N}}[0,k)N.) Thus, the question might arise: can we prove all true numerical statements within P A P A PAP APA ?
The answer is known to be negative. The famous incompleteness theorem by Kurt Gödel says that there is a numerical statement which is independent from PA (i.e., cannot be proved or disproved from PA). Such an independent statement is provided by diagonalization or self-reference as the liar paradox, and in particular, the numerical statement which intends to say "PA is consistent" is independent from PA. This leads to another question whether there is a "mathematical" statement which is independent from PA. The Paris-Harrington principle ( P H ) ( P H ) (PH)(\mathrm{PH})(PH) [33] is one of the earliest and most important such examples. It is a variant of the finite Ramsey theorem which states the following:
(PH) For any n , k , a N n , k , a ∈ N n,k,a inNn, k, a \in \mathbb{N}n,k,a∈N, there exists b N b ∈ N b inNb \in \mathbb{N}b∈N such that for any f : [ [ a , b ) N ] n k f : [ a , b ) N n → k f:[[a,b)_(N)]^(n)rarr kf:\left[[a, b)_{\mathbb{N}}\right]^{n} \rightarrow kf:[[a,b)N]n→k there exist H [ a , b ) N H ⊆ [ a , b ) N H sube[a,b)_(N)H \subseteq[a, b)_{\mathbb{N}}H⊆[a,b)N and c < k c < k c < kc<kc<k such that [ H ] n f 1 ( c ) [ H ] n ⊆ f − 1 ( c ) [H]^(n)subef^(-1)(c)[H]^{n} \subseteq f^{-1}(c)[H]n⊆f−1(c) and | H | > min H | H | > min H |H| > min H|H|>\min H|H|>minH.
Here, a set H H HHH is said to be relatively large if | H | > min H | H | > min H |H| > min H|H|>\min H|H|>minH, so P H P H PH\mathrm{PH}PH says "for any a N a ∈ N a inNa \in \mathbb{N}a∈N, there exists a large enough finite set X X XXX above a a aaa such that any coloring on X X XXX for the Ramsey theorem has a solution which is relatively large." By some standard coding of finite sets of natural numbers as single natural numbers (e.g., by binary expansion), P H P H PH\mathrm{PH}PH can be considered as a purely numerical statement. By easy combinatorics, one can prove P H P H PH\mathrm{PH}PH from the infinite Ramsey theorem (RT), thus P H P H PH\mathrm{PH}PH is a true statement about natural numbers.
So how can we know that PH is not provable from PA? The reason is again provided by the Gödel incompleteness, namely, PA + PH implies the consistency of PA and thus it is not provable from PA. Indeed, Paris and Harrington showed that P H P H PH\mathrm{PH}PH is equivalent over P A P A PA\mathrm{PA}PA to the correctness of PA with respect to ∀ ∃ AA EE\forall \exists∀∃-sentences (the statement "any ∀ ∃ AA EE\forall \exists∀∃-sentence provable from PA is true"), which is a strengthening of the consistency of PA.
On the other hand, many variants of the infinite Ramsey theorem are widely studied in the setting of second-order arithmetic. This is one of the central topics in the project named reverse mathematics whose ultimate goal is to determine the logical strength of mathematical theorems in various fields and classify them from viewpoints of several fields in logic. Typically, the strength of variants of the infinite Ramsey theorem is precisely calibrated from the viewpoints of computability and proof theory. Particularly, precise analyses for variants of
the Paris-Harrington principle are important approaches to identify the consistency strength of variants of the infinite Ramsey theorem.
In this article, we will overview the relations between the Paris-Harrington principle, the infinite Ramsey theorem and correctness statements (also known as reflection principles) mainly in the setting of second-order arithmetic. For this purpose, we will work with nonstandard models of arithmetic and relate the finite and infinite Ramsey theorem in them. A brief idea here is that if a nonstandard model satisfies some variant of finite Ramsey theorem with a solution of nonstandard size, then it should include a model for infinite Ramsey theorem. This can be realized by the theory of indicators introduced by Kirby and Paris [23]. We reformulate their argument and connect variants of P H P H PH\mathrm{PH}PH with the correctness of the infinite Ramsey theorem.
The structure of this article is the following. In Section 2, we set up basic definitions and review the studies on the Ramsey theorem in arithmetic. We give several formulations of the Paris-Harrington principle and their equivalents within second-order arithmetic in Sections 3 and 4. In Section 5, we see how the Paris-Harrington principle is related to the infinite Ramsey theorem by means of indicators. Some proofs in Section 5 require basic knowledge of nonstandard models of arithmetic.

2. FIRST- AND SECOND-ORDER ARITHMETIC AND THE RAMSEY THEOREM

In this section, we introduce fragments of first- and second-order arithmetic and set up basic definitions. For precise definitions, basic properties and other information, see, e.g., [16,21] for first-order arithmetic and [17,39] for second-order arithmetic.
We write L 1 L 1 L_(1)\mathscr{L}_{1}L1 for the language of first-order arithmetic, which consists of constants 0,1 , function symbols, + × + × +xx+ \times+×, and binary relation symbols = , = , ≤ =, <==, \leq=,≤, and write L 2 L 2 L_(2)\mathscr{L}_{2}L2 for the language of second-order arithmetic which consists of L 1 L 1 L_(1)\mathscr{L}_{1}L1 plus another binary relation ∈ in\in∈. We use x , y , z , x , y , z , … x,y,z,dotsx, y, z, \ldotsx,y,z,… for first-order (number) variables and X , Y , Z , X , Y , Z , … X,Y,Z,dotsX, Y, Z, \ldotsX,Y,Z,… for second-order (set) variables. An L 2 L 2 L_(2)\mathscr{L}_{2}L2-formula φ φ varphi\varphiφ is said to be bounded or Σ 0 0 Σ 0 0 Sigma_(0)^(0)\Sigma_{0}^{0}Σ00 if it does not contain any second-order quantifiers and all first-order quantifiers are of the form x t ∀ x ≤ t AA x <= t\forall x \leq t∀x≤t or x t ∃ x ≤ t EE x <= t\exists x \leq t∃x≤t, and it is said to be Σ n 0 ( Σ n 0 Sigma_(n)^(0)(:}\Sigma_{n}^{0}\left(\right.Σn0( resp. Π n 0 Π n 0 Pi_(n)^(0)\Pi_{n}^{0}Πn0 ) if it is of the form x 1 x 2 Q x n θ ∃ x 1 ∀ x 2 … Q x n θ EEx_(1)AAx_(2)dots Qx_(n)theta\exists x_{1} \forall x_{2} \ldots Q x_{n} \theta∃x1∀x2…Qxnθ (resp. x 1 x 2 Q x n θ ∀ x 1 ∃ x 2 … Q x n θ AAx_(1)EEx_(2)dots Qx_(n)theta\forall x_{1} \exists x_{2} \ldots Q x_{n} \theta∀x1∃x2…Qxnθ ) where θ θ theta\thetaθ is Σ 0 0 Σ 0 0 Sigma_(0)^(0)\Sigma_{0}^{0}Σ00. An L 2 L 2 L_(2)\mathscr{L}_{2}L2-formula φ φ varphi\varphiφ is said to be arithmetical or Σ 0 1 Σ 0 1 Sigma_(0)^(1)\Sigma_{0}^{1}Σ01 if it does not contain any secondorder quantifiers, and it is said to be Σ n 1 Σ n 1 Sigma_(n)^(1)\Sigma_{n}^{1}Σn1 (resp. Π n 1 Π n 1 Pi_(n)^(1)\Pi_{n}^{1}Πn1 ) if it is of the form X 1 X 2 Q X n θ ∃ X 1 ∀ X 2 … Q X n θ EEX_(1)AAX_(2)dots QX_(n)theta\exists X_{1} \forall X_{2} \ldots Q X_{n} \theta∃X1∀X2…QXnθ (resp. X 1 X 2 Q X n θ ∀ X 1 ∃ X 2 … Q X n θ AAX_(1)EEX_(2)dots QX_(n)theta\forall X_{1} \exists X_{2} \ldots Q X_{n} \theta∀X1∃X2…QXnθ ) where θ θ theta\thetaθ is Σ 0 1 Σ 0 1 Sigma_(0)^(1)\Sigma_{0}^{1}Σ01. If a Σ n 0 Σ n 0 Sigma_(n)^(0)\Sigma_{n}^{0}Σn0-formula (resp. Π n 0 Π n 0 Pi_(n)^(0)\Pi_{n}^{0}Πn0-formula) φ φ varphi\varphiφ does not contain any set variables (i.e., φ φ varphi\varphiφ is an L 1 L 1 L_(1)\mathscr{L}_{1}L1-formula), it is said to be Σ n Σ n Sigma_(n)\Sigma_{n}Σn (resp. Π n Π n Pi_(n)\Pi_{n}Πn ). We can extend L 1 L 1 L_(1)\mathscr{L}_{1}L1 with unary relation symbols U = U 1 , , U k U → = U 1 , … , U k vec(U)=U_(1),dots,U_(k)\vec{U}=U_{1}, \ldots, U_{k}U→=U1,…,Uk. Here, we identify U i U i U_(i)U_{i}Ui 's as secondorder (set) constants and consider L 1 U L 1 ∪ U → L_(1)uu vec(U)\mathscr{L}_{1} \cup \vec{U}L1∪U→-formulas as Σ 0 1 Σ 0 1 Sigma_(0)^(1)\Sigma_{0}^{1}Σ01-formulas (with extra constants). Then, an L 1 U L 1 ∪ U → L_(1)uu vec(U)\mathscr{L}_{1} \cup \vec{U}L1∪U→-formula is said to be Σ n U Σ n U → Sigma_(n)^( vec(U))\Sigma_{n}^{\vec{U}}ΣnU→ (resp. Π n U Π n U → Pi_(n)^( vec(U))\Pi_{n}^{\vec{U}}ΠnU→ ) if it is Σ n 0 Σ n 0 Sigma_(n)^(0)\Sigma_{n}^{0}Σn0 (resp. Π n 0 Π n 0 Pi_(n)^(0)\Pi_{n}^{0}Πn0 ).
For our discussions, we need to distinguish the actual ("standard") natural numbers from natural numbers formalized in axiomatic systems. Here, we use ℜ ℜ\Reℜ for the set of standard natural numbers, and N N N\mathbb{N}N for natural numbers formalized in the system. When we write
" n = 2 , 3 , 4 , n = 2 , 3 , 4 , … n=2,3,4,dotsn=2,3,4, \ldotsn=2,3,4,…, " it is intended that n n nnn ranges over N N N\mathfrak{N}N and n 2 n ≥ 2 n >= 2n \geq 2n≥2, while " n 2 n ≥ 2 n >= 2n \geq 2n≥2 " means that n n nnn ranges over N N N\mathbb{N}N and n 2 n ≥ 2 n >= 2n \geq 2n≥2.

2.1. The Paris-Harrington principle in first-order arithmetic

We adopt the elementary function arithmetic (EFA) for our base system of first-order arithmetic. It consists of the axioms of discrete ordered semirings, the totality of exponentiation 1 1 ^(1){ }^{1}1 and the induction axiom (IND) of the form
(IND) φ ( 0 ) x ( φ ( x ) φ ( x + 1 ) ) x φ ( x ) φ ( 0 ) ∧ ∀ x ( φ ( x ) → φ ( x + 1 ) ) → ∀ x φ ( x ) varphi(0)^^AA x(varphi(x)rarr varphi(x+1))rarr AA x varphi(x)\varphi(0) \wedge \forall x(\varphi(x) \rightarrow \varphi(x+1)) \rightarrow \forall x \varphi(x)φ(0)∧∀x(φ(x)→φ(x+1))→∀xφ(x)
for each Σ 0 Σ 0 Sigma_(0)\Sigma_{0}Σ0-formula φ ( x ) φ ( x ) varphi(x)\varphi(x)φ(x). Then, the system I Σ n I Σ n ISigma_(n)I \Sigma_{n}IΣn is defined as EFA plus the induction axioms for Σ n Σ n Sigma_(n)\Sigma_{n}Σn-formulas, and the Peano arithmetic (PA) is defined as PA = n Ω I Σ n = ⋃ n ∈ Ω   I Σ n =uuu_(n inOmega)ISigma_(n)=\bigcup_{n \in \mathfrak{\Omega}} I \Sigma_{n}=⋃n∈ΩIΣn. We may also expand EFA with unary predicates. If U = U 1 , , U k U → = U 1 , … , U k vec(U)=U_(1),dots,U_(k)\vec{U}=U_{1}, \ldots, U_{k}U→=U1,…,Uk are unary predicates, EFA U U → vec(U)\vec{U}U→ consists of EFA plus the induction axioms for Σ 0 U Σ 0 U → Sigma_(0)^( vec(U))\Sigma_{0}^{\vec{U}}Σ0U→-formulas.
Within EFA, finite sets of natural numbers, finite sequences of natural numbers, functions on finite sets, or other finite objects on N N N\mathbb{N}N are coded by numbers. We write [ N ] < N [ N ] < N [N]^( < N)[\mathbb{N}]^{<\mathbb{N}}[N]<N for the set of all (codes) of finite subsets of N N N\mathbb{N}N. For each F [ N ] < N F ∈ [ N ] < N F in[N]^( < N)F \in[\mathbb{N}]^{<\mathbb{N}}F∈[N]<N, we can define | F | | F | |F||F||F| as the (unique) smallest m N m ∈ N m inNm \in \mathbb{N}m∈N such that there is a bijection between F F FFF and m = [ 0 , m ) N m = [ 0 , m ) N m=[0,m)_(N)m=[0, m)_{\mathbb{N}}m=[0,m)N. In the context of the Ramsey theorem, a function of the form c : [ X ] n k c : [ X ] n → k c:[X]^(n)rarr kc:[X]^{n} \rightarrow kc:[X]n→k is often called a coloring. (Recall that [ X ] n = { F [ N ] < N : | F | = n F N } [ X ] n = F ∈ [ N ] < N : | F | = n ∧ F ⊆ N [X]^(n)={F in[N]^( < N):|F|=n^^F subeN}[X]^{n}=\left\{F \in[\mathbb{N}]^{<\mathbb{N}}:|F|=n \wedge F \subseteq \mathbb{N}\right\}[X]n={F∈[N]<N:|F|=n∧F⊆N}.) Then, a set H X H ⊆ X H sube XH \subseteq XH⊆X is said to be c c ccc-homogeneous if there exists i < k i < k i < ki<ki<k such that [ H ] n c 1 ( i ) [ H ] n ⊆ c − 1 ( i ) [H]^(n)subec^(-1)(i)[H]^{n} \subseteq c^{-1}(i)[H]n⊆c−1(i).
We first define the key notion introduced by Paris [32]. The following definition can be made within EFA.
Definition 2.1 (Density). Let n 1 n ≥ 1 n >= 1n \geq 1n≥1 or n = n = ∞ n=oon=\inftyn=∞ and k 2 k ≥ 2 k >= 2k \geq 2k≥2 or k = k = ∞ k=ook=\inftyk=∞. For given m N m ∈ N m inNm \in \mathbb{N}m∈N, we define m m mmm-density for ( n , k ) ( n , k ) (n,k)(n, k)(n,k) as follows:
  • a finite set F F FFF is said to be 0 -dense ( n , k ) ( n , k ) (n,k)(n, k)(n,k) if | F | > min F | F | > min F |F| > min F|F|>\min F|F|>minF ( F F FFF is relatively large),
  • a finite set F F FFF is said to be ( m + 1 ) ( m + 1 ) (m+1)(m+1)(m+1)-dense ( n , k ) ( n , k ) (n,k)(n, k)(n,k) if for any c : [ F ] n k c : [ F ] n ′ → k ′ c:[F]^(n^('))rarrk^(')c:[F]^{n^{\prime}} \rightarrow k^{\prime}c:[F]n′→k′ where n min { n , min F } n ′ ≤ min { n , min F } n^(') <= min{n,min F}n^{\prime} \leq \min \{n, \min F\}n′≤min{n,minF} and k min { k , min F } k ′ ≤ min { k , min F } k^(') <= min{k,min F}k^{\prime} \leq \min \{k, \min F\}k′≤min{k,minF}, there exists a c c ccc-homogeneous set H F H ⊆ F H sube FH \subseteq FH⊆F such that H H HHH is m m mmm-dense ( n , k ) ( n , k ) (n,k)(n, k)(n,k). (Here, we set min { , a } = a min { ∞ , a } = a min{oo,a}=a\min \{\infty, a\}=amin{∞,a}=a for a N a ∈ N a inNa \in \mathbb{N}a∈N.)
Although the notion is defined inductively, the statement that F F FFF is m m mmm-dense ( n , k ) ( n , k ) (n,k)(n, k)(n,k) is Σ 0 Σ 0 Sigma_(0)\Sigma_{0}Σ0, in other words, there exists a Σ 0 Σ 0 Sigma_(0)\Sigma_{0}Σ0-formula ψ ( n , k , F , m ) ψ ( n , k , F , m ) psi(n,k,F,m)\psi(n, k, F, m)ψ(n,k,F,m) such that ψ ( n , k , F , m ) ψ ( n , k , F , m ) psi(n,k,F,m)\psi(n, k, F, m)ψ(n,k,F,m) holds if and only if F F FFF is m m mmm-dense ( n , k ) ( n , k ) (n,k)(n, k)(n,k).
Definition 2.2 (The Paris-Harrington principle). Let n 1 n ≥ 1 n >= 1n \geq 1n≥1 or n = , k 2 n = ∞ , k ≥ 2 n=oo,k >= 2n=\infty, k \geq 2n=∞,k≥2 or k = k = ∞ k=ook=\inftyk=∞ and m N m ∈ N m inNm \in \mathbb{N}m∈N. Then, the Paris-Harrington principle, m P H k n m P H k n mPH_(k)^(n)m \mathrm{PH}_{k}^{n}mPHkn and I t P H k n I t P H k n ItPH_(k)^(n)\mathrm{ItPH}_{k}^{n}ItPHkn, is defined as follows:
  • m P H k n : a b a ( [ a , b ) N m P H k n : ∀ a ∃ b ≥ a [ a , b ) N mPH_(k)^(n):AA a EE b >= a([a,b)_(N):}m \mathrm{PH}_{k}^{n}: \forall a \exists b \geq a\left([a, b)_{\mathbb{N}}\right.mPHkn:∀a∃b≥a([a,b)N is m m mmm-dense ( n , k ) ) ( n , k ) {:(n,k))\left.(n, k)\right)(n,k)).
  • I t P H k n :≡ m m P H k n I t P H k n :≡ ∀ m m P H k n ItPH_(k)^(n):≡AA mmPH_(k)^(n)\mathrm{ItPH}_{k}^{n}: \equiv \forall m m \mathrm{PH}_{k}^{n}ItPHkn:≡∀mmPHkn.
We simply write P H k n P H k n PH_(k)^(n)\mathrm{PH}_{k}^{n}PHkn for 1 P H k n 1 P H k n 1PH_(k)^(n)1 \mathrm{PH}_{k}^{n}1PHkn. Additionally, we usually omit ∞ oo\infty∞ and write P H n P H n PH^(n)\mathrm{PH}^{n}PHn for P H n P H ∞ n PH_(oo)^(n)\mathrm{PH}_{\infty}^{n}PH∞n, P H P H PH\mathrm{PH}PH for P H P H ∞ ∞ PH_(oo)^(oo)\mathrm{PH}_{\infty}^{\infty}PH∞∞, and so on.
It is known that I Σ 1 I Σ 1 ISigma_(1)I \Sigma_{1}IΣ1 proves P H 2 n + 1 P H n P H 2 n + 1 → P H n PH_(2)^(n+1)rarrPH^(n)\mathrm{PH}_{2}^{n+1} \rightarrow \mathrm{PH}^{n}PH2n+1→PHn. Thus there is a hierarchy of implications
P H 1 P H 2 2 P H 3 2 P H 2 P H 2 3 P H 3 3 P H 3 P H 2 4 P H 1 ≤ P H 2 2 ≤ P H 3 2 ≤ ⋯ ≤ P H 2 ≤ P H 2 3 ≤ P H 3 3 ≤ ⋯ ≤ P H 3 ≤ P H 2 4 ≤ ⋯ PH^(1) <= PH_(2)^(2) <= PH_(3)^(2) <= cdots <= PH^(2) <= PH_(2)^(3) <= PH_(3)^(3) <= cdots <= PH^(3) <= PH_(2)^(4) <= cdots\mathrm{PH}^{1} \leq \mathrm{PH}_{2}^{2} \leq \mathrm{PH}_{3}^{2} \leq \cdots \leq \mathrm{PH}^{2} \leq \mathrm{PH}_{2}^{3} \leq \mathrm{PH}_{3}^{3} \leq \cdots \leq \mathrm{PH}^{3} \leq \mathrm{PH}_{2}^{4} \leq \cdotsPH1≤PH22≤PH32≤⋯≤PH2≤PH23≤PH33≤⋯≤PH3≤PH24≤⋯
It is known that this hierarchy is strict above P H 2 P H 2 PH^(2)\mathrm{PH}^{2}PH2 over I Σ 1 I Σ 1 ISigma_(1)I \Sigma_{1}IΣ1, whereas I Σ n I Σ n ISigma_(n)I \Sigma_{n}IΣn proves P H k n + 1 P H k n + 1 PH_(k)^(n+1)\mathrm{PH}_{k}^{n+1}PHkn+1 for k = 2 , 3 , k = 2 , 3 , … k=2,3,dotsk=2,3, \ldotsk=2,3,… On the other hand, calibrating the strength of m P H k n m P H k n mPH_(k)^(n)m \mathrm{PH}_{k}^{n}mPHkn for m 2 m ≥ 2 m >= 2m \geq 2m≥2 is much harder, except for the implication m P H 2 n P H m + 1 n m P H 2 n → P H m + 1 n mPH_(2)^(n)rarrPH_(m+1)^(n)m \mathrm{PH}_{2}^{n} \rightarrow \mathrm{PH}_{m+1}^{n}mPH2n→PHm+1n which directly follows from the definition.
We next formalize the correctness of theories of arithmetic. Within EFA, basic notions of first-order logic such as (well-formed) formulas, formal proofs (by the Hilbertstyle proof system or other formal systems) are formalizable by means of Gödel numbering. Typically, we can encode the provability for first- and second-order arithmetic within EFA, namely, there exists a Σ 1 Σ 1 Sigma_(1)\Sigma_{1}Σ1-formula Prov ( T , x ) Prov ⁡ ( T , x ) Prov(T,x)\operatorname{Prov}(T, x)Prov⁡(T,x) which means that a formula (encoded by) x x xxx is provable from a theory (i.e., a finite or recursive set of sentences) T . 2 T . 2 T.^(2)T .{ }^{2}T.2 On the other hand, we can also formalize the truth on N N N\mathbb{N}N, but only partially. By formalizing Tarski's truth definition, for each tuples of variables Z Z → vec(Z)\vec{Z}Z→ and z z → vec(z)\vec{z}z→, there exists a Π 1 0 Π 1 0 Pi_(1)^(0)\Pi_{1}^{0}Π10-formula π ( Z , z , x ) Ï€ ( Z → , z → , x ) pi( vec(Z), vec(z),x)\pi(\vec{Z}, \vec{z}, x)Ï€(Z→,z→,x) such that for any unary predicates U U → vec(U)\vec{U}U→ and a Σ 0 U Σ 0 U → Sigma_(0)^( vec(U))\Sigma_{0}^{\vec{U}}Σ0U→-formula φ ( z ) φ ( z → ) varphi( vec(z))\varphi(\vec{z})φ(z→), EFA U U → vec(U)\vec{U}U→ proves z ( π ( U , z , φ ) φ ( z ) ) ∀ z → ( Ï€ ( U → , z → , ⌈ φ ⌉ ) ↔ φ ( z → ) ) AA vec(z)(pi( vec(U), vec(z),|~varphi~|)harr varphi( vec(z)))\forall \vec{z}(\pi(\vec{U}, \vec{z},\lceil\varphi\rceil) \leftrightarrow \varphi(\vec{z}))∀z→(Ï€(U→,z→,⌈φ⌉)↔φ(z→)) where φ ⌈ φ ⌉ |~varphi~|\lceil\varphi\rceil⌈φ⌉ is the Gödel number encoding φ φ varphi\varphiφ. Then, for n = 1 , 2 , n = 1 , 2 , … n=1,2,dotsn=1,2, \ldotsn=1,2,…, there exists a Π n 0 Π n 0 Pi_(n)^(0)\Pi_{n}^{0}Πn0-formula Tr n ( Z , z , x ) Tr n ⁡ ( Z → , z → , x ) Tr_(n)( vec(Z), vec(z),x)\operatorname{Tr}_{n}(\vec{Z}, \vec{z}, x)Trn⁡(Z→,z→,x) such that for any unary predicates U U → vec(U)\vec{U}U→ and a Π n U Π n U → Pi_(n)^( vec(U))\Pi_{n}^{\vec{U}}ΠnU→-formula φ ( z ) , EFA U φ ( z → ) , EFA ⁡ U → varphi( vec(z)),EFA vec(U)\varphi(\vec{z}), \operatorname{EFA} \vec{U}φ(z→),EFA⁡U→ proves z ( Tr n ( U , z , φ ) φ ( z ) ) ∀ z → Tr n ⁡ ( U → , z → , ⌈ φ ⌉ ) ↔ φ ( z → ) AA vec(z)(Tr_(n)(( vec(U)),( vec(z)),|~varphi~|)harr varphi(( vec(z))))\forall \vec{z}\left(\operatorname{Tr}_{n}(\vec{U}, \vec{z},\lceil\varphi\rceil) \leftrightarrow \varphi(\vec{z})\right)∀z→(Trn⁡(U→,z→,⌈φ⌉)↔φ(z→)). This formula is called the Π n Π n Pi_(n)\Pi_{n}Πn-truth predicate. The formalized correctness statements (also known as reflection principles) are defined as follows. (Formally, π Ï€ pi\piÏ€ and Tr n Tr n Tr_(n)\operatorname{Tr}_{n}Trn depend on the number of variables, but we may assume that Z Z → vec(Z)\vec{Z}Z→ and z z → vec(z)\vec{z}z→ contains all variables which will appear in the entire discussion. We may ignore variables not appearing in the formula encoded by x x xxx by substituting 0 into them.)
Definition 2.3 (Correctness). Let n = 1 , 2 , n = 1 , 2 , … n=1,2,dotsn=1,2, \ldotsn=1,2,…, and let T T TTT be an L 1 L 1 L_(1)\mathscr{L}_{1}L1 - or L 2 L 2 L_(2)\mathscr{L}_{2}L2-theory. Then the Π n Π n Pi_(n)\Pi_{n}Πn-correctness of T ( Π n T Π n T(Pi_(n):}T\left(\Pi_{n}\right.T(Πn-corr ( T ) ) ( T ) {:(T))\left.(T)\right)(T)) is the following statement:
x ∀ x AA x\forall x∀x (“ x x xxx is (a Gödel number of) a Π n Π n Pi_(n)\Pi_{n}Πn-sentence" Prov ( T , x ) Tr n ( x ) ∧ Prov ⁡ ( T , x ) → Tr n ⁡ ( x ) ^^Prov(T,x)rarrTr_(n)(x)\wedge \operatorname{Prov}(T, x) \rightarrow \operatorname{Tr}_{n}(x)∧Prov⁡(T,x)→Trn⁡(x) ).
Note that Π n Π n Pi_(n)\Pi_{n}Πn-corr ( T ) ( T ) (T)(T)(T) is a Π n Π n Pi_(n)\Pi_{n}Πn-statement, and it implies the consistency of T T TTT since it implies ¬ ( 0 = 1 ) ¬ Prov ( T , 0 = 1 ) ¬ ( 0 = 1 ) → ¬ Prov ⁡ ( T , ⌈ 0 = 1 ⌉ ) not(0=1)rarr not Prov(T,|~0=1~|)\neg(0=1) \rightarrow \neg \operatorname{Prov}(T,\lceil 0=1\rceil)¬(0=1)→¬Prov⁡(T,⌈0=1⌉).
Now we are ready to state the theorem by Paris and Harrington.
Theorem 2.1 (Paris and Harrington [32,33]). The following are equivalent over Σ 1 3 Σ 1 3 Sigma_(1)^(3)\Sigma_{1}{ }^{3}Σ13 :
1. P H P H PH\mathrm{PH}PH.
2. ItPH k n ( n = 3 , 4 , , k = 2 , 3 , ItPH k n ⁡ ( n = 3 , 4 , … , k = 2 , 3 , … ItPH_(k)^(n)(n=3,4,dots,k=2,3,dots\operatorname{ItPH}_{k}^{n}(n=3,4, \ldots, k=2,3, \ldotsItPHkn⁡(n=3,4,…,k=2,3,… or k = ) k = ∞ ) k=oo)k=\infty)k=∞).
3. Π 2 Π 2 Pi_(2)\Pi_{2}Π2-corr(PA).
Here, I t P H 2 3 I t P H 2 3 ItPH_(2)^(3)\mathrm{ItPH}_{2}^{3}ItPH23 is the original statement independent of PA introduced by Paris [32]. The equivalence of I t P H 2 3 I t P H 2 3 ItPH_(2)^(3)\mathrm{ItPH}_{2}^{3}ItPH23 and P H P H PH\mathrm{PH}PH can be proved in a combinatorial way, while we see that both are equivalent to Π 2 Π 2 Pi_(2)\Pi_{2}Π2-corr(PA) in Section 5. Moreover, the Π 2 Π 2 Pi_(2)\Pi_{2}Π2-correctness of fragments of PA can be characterized by PH as well.
Theorem 2.2 (Paris, see [16]). Let n = 1 , 2 , n = 1 , 2 , … n=1,2,dotsn=1,2, \ldotsn=1,2,… Then Π 2 Π 2 Pi_(2)\Pi_{2}Π2-corr( ( Σ n ) Σ n (Sigma_(n))\left(\Sigma_{n}\right)(Σn) is equivalent to P H n + 1 P H n + 1 PH^(n+1)\mathrm{PH}^{n+1}PHn+1 over Σ 1 over ∣ Σ 1 over∣Sigma_(1)\operatorname{over} \mid \Sigma_{1}over∣Σ1.
There are many other combinatorial or other numerical principles known to be independent of PA such as the Kanamori-McAloon theorem (KM) [20] and the termination of the Goodstein sequence [15]. Many of them are equivalent to the Π 2 Π 2 Pi_(2)\Pi_{2}Π2-correctness of PA, while some others are strictly stronger. A typical such example is a finite variant of Kruskal's tree theorem introduced by Friedman. See [ 13 , 38 ] [ 13 , 38 ] [13,38][13,38][13,38].

2.2. Second-order arithmetic and the infinite Ramsey theorem

The system of second-order induction I Σ n i I Σ n i ISigma_(n)^(i)I \Sigma_{n}^{i}IΣni consists of EFA plus the induction axioms for Σ n i Σ n i Sigma_(n)^(i)\Sigma_{n}^{i}Σni-formulas. It is not difficult to see that Σ n 0 ∣ Σ n 0 ∣Sigma_(n)^(0)\mid \Sigma_{n}^{0}∣Σn0 is a conservative extension of I Σ n I Σ n ISigma_(n)I \Sigma_{n}IΣn, in other words, they prove the same L 1 L 1 L_(1)\mathscr{L}_{1}L1-sentences. Our base system for second-order arithmetic is R C A 0 R C A 0 RCA_(0)\mathrm{RCA}_{0}RCA0, which consists of Σ 1 0 ∣ Σ 1 0 ∣Sigma_(1)^(0)\mid \Sigma_{1}^{0}∣Σ10 plus the following recursive comprehension axiom (RCA): for each pair of Σ 1 0 Σ 1 0 Sigma_(1)^(0)\Sigma_{1}^{0}Σ10-formulas φ ( x ) , ψ ( x ) φ ( x ) , ψ ( x ) varphi(x),psi(x)\varphi(x), \psi(x)φ(x),ψ(x),
x ( φ ( x ) ¬ ψ ( x ) ) X x ( x X φ ( x ) ) ∀ x ( φ ( x ) ↔ ¬ ψ ( x ) ) → ∃ X ∀ x ( x ∈ X ↔ φ ( x ) ) AA x(varphi(x)harr not psi(x))rarr EE X AA x(x in X harr varphi(x))\forall x(\varphi(x) \leftrightarrow \neg \psi(x)) \rightarrow \exists X \forall x(x \in X \leftrightarrow \varphi(x))∀x(φ(x)↔¬ψ(x))→∃X∀x(x∈X↔φ(x))
The next system is W K L 0 W K L 0 WKL_(0)\mathrm{WKL}_{0}WKL0, which consists of R C A 0 R C A 0 RCA_(0)\mathrm{RCA}_{0}RCA0 plus weak König's lemma (WKL). Here, we define W K L W K L WKL\mathrm{WKL}WKL in a slightly stronger form (but still equivalent to the original definition over RCA 0 RCA 0 RCA_(0)\operatorname{RCA}_{0}RCA0, see [39, LEMMA IV.1.4]). A tree T T TTT is a family of functions of the form p : [ 0 , m ) N N p : [ 0 , m ) N → N p:[0,m)_(N)rarrNp:[0, m)_{\mathbb{N}} \rightarrow \mathbb{N}p:[0,m)N→N ( m N m ∈ N m inNm \in \mathbb{N}m∈N ) such that for any p T p ∈ T p in Tp \in Tp∈T and N ℓ ∈ N ℓinN\ell \in \mathbb{N}ℓ∈N with [ [ 0 , ) N ] n dom ( p ) , p [ [ 0 , ) N ] n [ 0 , ℓ ) N n ⊆ dom ⁡ ( p ) , p ↾ [ 0 , ℓ ) N n [[0,ℓ)_(N)]^(n)sube dom(p),p↾[[0,ℓ)_(N)]^(n)\left[[0, \ell)_{\mathbb{N}}\right]^{n} \subseteq \operatorname{dom}(p), p \upharpoonright\left[[0, \ell)_{\mathbb{N}}\right]^{n}[[0,ℓ)N]n⊆dom⁡(p),p↾[[0,ℓ)N]n is also a member of T T TTT. A tree T T TTT is said to be bounded if there exists a function h : N N h : N → N h:NrarrNh: \mathbb{N} \rightarrow \mathbb{N}h:N→N such that p ( i ) h ( i ) p ( i ) ≤ h ( i ) p(i) <= h(i)p(i) \leq h(i)p(i)≤h(i) for any p T p ∈ T p in Tp \in Tp∈T and i dom ( p ) i ∈ dom ⁡ ( p ) i in dom(p)i \in \operatorname{dom}(p)i∈dom⁡(p). Then WKL asserts the following:
for any infinite bounded tree T T TTT, there exists a function (a path of T T TTT ) f f fff such that f [ 0 , m ) N T f ↾ [ 0 , m ) N ∈ T f↾[0,m)_(N)in Tf \upharpoonright[0, m)_{\mathbb{N}} \in Tf↾[0,m)N∈T for any m N m ∈ N m inNm \in \mathbb{N}m∈N.
Finally, the system A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A_(0)A_(0)A_{0} A_{0}A0A0 consists of R C A 0 R C A 0 RCA_(0)\mathrm{RCA}_{0}RCA0 plus the arithmetical comprehension axiom (ACA): for each Σ 0 1 Σ 0 1 Sigma_(0)^(1)\Sigma_{0}^{1}Σ01-formula φ ( x ) φ ( x ) varphi(x)\varphi(x)φ(x),
X x ( x X φ ( x ) ) ∃ X ∀ x ( x ∈ X ↔ φ ( x ) ) EE X AA x(x in X harr varphi(x))\exists X \forall x(x \in X \leftrightarrow \varphi(x))∃X∀x(x∈X↔φ(x))
The strength of these three systems is precisely known and W K L 0 W K L 0 WKL_(0)\mathrm{WKL}_{0}WKL0 is strictly inbetween R C A 0 R C A 0 RCA_(0)R C A_{0}RCA0 and A C A 0 A C A 0 ACA_(0)A C A_{0}ACA0. On the other hand, the L 1 L 1 L_(1)\mathscr{L}_{1}L1-consequences of R C A 0 R C A 0 RCA_(0)R C A_{0}RCA0 and W K L 0 W K L 0 WKL_(0)W K L_{0}WKL0 are the same and they coincide with those of I Σ 1 I Σ 1 ISigma_(1)I \Sigma_{1}IΣ1, while the L L 1 L L 1 LL_(1)\mathscr{L} \mathscr{L}_{1}LL1-consequences of A C A 0 A C A 0 ACA_(0)\mathrm{ACA}_{0}ACA0 coincide with those of PA.
Over RCA , the infinite Ramsey theorem is directly formalizable as follows.
Definition 2.4 (The infinite Ramsey theorem). The infinite Ramsey theorem R T k n R T k n RT_(k)^(n)\mathrm{RT}_{k}^{n}RTkn is defined as follows:
  • R T k n R T k n RT_(k)^(n)\mathrm{RT}_{k}^{n}RTkn : for any c : [ N ] n k c : [ N ] n → k c:[N]^(n)rarr kc:[\mathbb{N}]^{n} \rightarrow kc:[N]n→k, there exists an infinite set H N H ⊆ N H subeNH \subseteq \mathbb{N}H⊆N such that H H HHH is c c ccc-homogeneous ( n 1 n ≥ 1 n >= 1n \geq 1n≥1 and k 2 k ≥ 2 k >= 2k \geq 2k≥2 ).
  • R T n :≡ k R T k n , R T :≡ n R T n R T ∞ n :≡ ∀ k R T k n , R T ∞ ∞ :≡ ∀ n R T ∞ n RT_(oo)^(n):≡AA kRT_(k)^(n),RT_(oo)^(oo):≡AA nRT_(oo)^(n)\mathrm{RT}_{\infty}^{n}: \equiv \forall k \mathrm{RT}_{k}^{n}, \mathrm{RT}_{\infty}^{\infty}: \equiv \forall n \mathrm{RT}_{\infty}^{n}RT∞n:≡∀kRTkn,RT∞∞:≡∀nRT∞n.
We usually omit ∞ oo\infty∞ and write R T n R T n RT^(n)\mathrm{RT}^{n}RTn for R T n , R T 2 R T ∞ n , R T 2 RT_(oo)^(n),RT^(2)\mathrm{RT}_{\infty}^{n}, \mathrm{RT}^{2}RT∞n,RT2 for R T R T ∞ ∞ RT_(oo)^(oo)\mathrm{RT}_{\infty}^{\infty}RT∞∞.
Within R C A 0 R C A 0 RCA_(0)\mathrm{RCA}_{0}RCA0, it is known that R T k n R T k n RT_(k)^(n)\mathrm{RT}_{k}^{n}RTkn implies R T k + 1 n R T k + 1 n RT_(k+1)^(n)\mathrm{RT}_{k+1}^{n}RTk+1n and R T 2 n + 1 R T 2 n + 1 RT_(2)^(n+1)\mathrm{RT}_{2}^{n+1}RT2n+1 implies R T n R T n RT^(n)\mathrm{RT}^{n}RTn. Be aware that the former does not imply R T 2 n R T n R T 2 n → R T n RT_(2)^(n)rarrRT^(n)\mathrm{RT}_{2}^{n} \rightarrow \mathrm{RT}^{n}RT2n→RTn because of the lack of induction. So, we have the hierarchy
R T 2 1 R T 1 R T 2 2 R T 2 R T 2 3 R T 2 1 ≤ R T 1 ≤ R T 2 2 ≤ R T 2 ≤ R T 2 3 ≤ ⋯ RT_(2)^(1) <= RT^(1) <= RT_(2)^(2) <= RT^(2) <= RT_(2)^(3) <= cdots\mathrm{RT}_{2}^{1} \leq \mathrm{RT}^{1} \leq \mathrm{RT}_{2}^{2} \leq \mathrm{RT}^{2} \leq \mathrm{RT}_{2}^{3} \leq \cdotsRT21≤RT1≤RT22≤RT2≤RT23≤⋯
However, this hierarchy collapses at the level of n = 3 n = 3 n=3n=3n=3.
Theorem 2.3 (Jockusch [19], reformulated by Simpson [39]). Let n = 3 , 4 , n = 3 , 4 , … n=3,4,dotsn=3,4, \ldotsn=3,4,…, and let k = 2 , 3 , k = 2 , 3 , … k=2,3,dotsk=2,3, \ldotsk=2,3,… or k = k = ∞ k=ook=\inftyk=∞. Then, over R C A 0 , R T k n R C A 0 , R T k n RCA_(0),RT_(k)^(n)\mathrm{RCA}_{0}, \mathrm{RT}_{k}^{n}RCA0,RTkn is equivalent to A C A 0 A C A 0 ACA_(0)\mathrm{ACA}_{0}ACA0.
On the other hand, the full infinite Ramsey theorem RT is strictly stronger than A C A 0 A C A 0 ACA_(0)\mathrm{ACA}_{0}ACA0. This is unavoidable since RT implies PH over R C A 0 R C A 0 RCA_(0)\mathrm{RCA}_{0}RCA0, and thus it implies the consistency of PA. To prove RT, we need the system A C A 0 A C A 0 ′ ACA_(0)^(')\mathrm{ACA}_{0}^{\prime}ACA0′ which consists of A C A 0 A C A 0 ACA_(0)\mathrm{ACA}_{0}ACA0 plus the assertion that for any n N n ∈ N n inNn \in \mathbb{N}n∈N and any set X X XXX, the n n nnnth Turing jump of X X XXX exists.
Theorem 2.4 (McAloon [29], see also [17]). Over RCA , RT is equivalent to A C A 0 A C A 0 ′ ACA_(0)^(')\mathrm{ACA}_{0}^{\prime}ACA0′.
The situations of R T 2 2 R T 2 2 RT_(2)^(2)\mathrm{RT}_{2}^{2}RT22 and R T 2 R T 2 RT^(2)\mathrm{RT}^{2}RT2 are complicated. There are many important results on the reverse mathematical and computability theoretic strength of R T 2 2 R T 2 2 RT_(2)^(2)\mathrm{RT}_{2}^{2}RT22 or R T 2 R T 2 RT^(2)\mathrm{RT}^{2}RT2 such as [ 7 , 8 , 30 , 37 ] [ 7 , 8 , 30 , 37 ] [7,8,30,37][7,8,30,37][7,8,30,37]. Typically, R T 2 2 R T 2 2 RT_(2)^(2)\mathrm{RT}_{2}^{2}RT22 and R T 2 R T 2 RT^(2)\mathrm{RT}^{2}RT2 are strictly in between R C A 0 R C A 0 RCA_(0)\mathrm{RCA}_{0}RCA0 and A C A 0 A C A 0 ACA_(0)\mathrm{ACA}_{0}ACA0, but still different from W K L 0 W K L 0 WKL_(0)\mathrm{WKL}_{0}WKL0 even with full induction.
Theorem 2.5 (Jockusch [19], Liu [28]). R T 2 2 R T 2 2 RT_(2)^(2)\mathrm{RT}_{2}^{2}RT22 and R T 2 R T 2 RT^(2)\mathrm{RT}^{2}RT2 are incomparable with W K L 0 W K L 0 WKL_(0)\mathrm{WKL}_{0}WKL0 over RCA 0 + Σ 1 ( RCA 0 + ∣ Σ ∞ 1 RCA_(0)+∣Sigma_(oo)^(1)(:}\operatorname{RCA}_{0}+\mid \Sigma_{\infty}^{1}\left(\right.RCA0+∣Σ∞1( where Σ i = { I Σ n i : n Ω } ∣ Σ ∞ i = I Σ n i : n ∈ Ω ∣Sigma_(oo)^(i)={ISigma_(n)^(i):n in Omega}\mid \Sigma_{\infty}^{i}=\left\{I \Sigma_{n}^{i}: n \in \Omega\right\}∣Σ∞i={IΣni:n∈Ω} ).
The Π 1 1 Π 1 1 Pi_(1)^(1)\Pi_{1}^{1}Π11-consequences (or equivalently, L 1 L 1 L_(1)\mathscr{L}_{1}L1-consequences with second-order constants) of R T 2 2 R T 2 2 RT_(2)^(2)\mathrm{RT}_{2}^{2}RT22 and R T 2 R T 2 RT^(2)\mathrm{RT}^{2}RT2 are also studied precisely. A Π n 1 A Π n 1 APi_(n)^(1)\mathrm{A} \Pi_{n}^{1}AΠn1-formula X 1 Q X n θ ∀ X 1 … Q X n θ AAX_(1)dots QX_(n)theta\forall X_{1} \ldots Q X_{n} \theta∀X1…QXnθ is said to be restricted Π n 1 ( r Π n 1 ) Π n 1 r Π n 1 Pi_(n)^(1)(rPi_(n)^(1))\Pi_{n}^{1}\left(\mathrm{r} \Pi_{n}^{1}\right)Πn1(rΠn1) if θ θ theta\thetaθ is Σ 2 0 Σ 2 0 Sigma_(2)^(0)\Sigma_{2}^{0}Σ20 and n n nnn is odd or θ θ theta\thetaθ is Π 2 0 Π 2 0 Pi_(2)^(0)\Pi_{2}^{0}Π20 and n n nnn is even, and r Σ n 1 r Σ n 1 rSigma_(n)^(1)\mathrm{r} \Sigma_{n}^{1}rΣn1-formulas are defined in the dual way.
Theorem 2.6. 1. R C A 0 + R T 2 2 R C A 0 + R T 2 2 RCA_(0)+RT_(2)^(2)\mathrm{RCA}_{0}+\mathrm{RT}_{2}^{2}RCA0+RT22 proves B Σ 2 0 B Σ 2 0 BSigma_(2)^(0)\mathrm{B} \Sigma_{2}^{0}BΣ20 and it is Π 1 1 Π 1 1 Pi_(1)^(1)\Pi_{1}^{1}Π11-conservative over R C A 0 + I Σ 2 0 R C A 0 + I Σ 2 0 RCA_(0)+ISigma_(2)^(0)\mathrm{RCA}_{0}+\mathrm{I} \Sigma_{2}^{0}RCA0+IΣ20 (i.e., any Π 1 1 Π 1 1 Pi_(1)^(1)\Pi_{1}^{1}Π11-sentences which are provable from R C A 0 + R T 2 2 R C A 0 + R T 2 2 RCA_(0)+RT_(2)^(2)\mathrm{RCA}_{0}+\mathrm{RT}_{2}^{2}RCA0+RT22 are provable from R C A 0 + I Σ 2 0 R C A 0 + I Σ 2 0 RCA_(0)+ISigma_(2)^(0)\mathrm{RCA}_{0}+\mathrm{I} \Sigma_{2}^{0}RCA0+IΣ20 ). (Hirst [18] and Cholak/Jockusch/Slaman [7] ) 4 ) 4 )^(4))^{4})4
2. R C A 0 + R T 2 2 R C A 0 + R T 2 2 RCA_(0)+RT_(2)^(2)\mathrm{RCA}_{0}+\mathrm{RT}_{2}^{2}RCA0+RT22 is r Π 1 1 r Π 1 1 rPi_(1)^(1)\mathrm{r} \Pi_{1}^{1}rΠ11-conservative over R C A 0 R C A 0 RCA_(0)\mathrm{RCA}_{0}RCA0. (Patey/Yokoyama [34], see also KoÅ‚odziejczyk/Yokoyama [25])
3. R C A 0 + R T 2 R C A 0 + R T 2 RCA_(0)+RT^(2)\mathrm{RCA}_{0}+\mathrm{RT}^{2}RCA0+RT2 proves B Σ 3 0 B Σ 3 0 BSigma_(3)^(0)\mathrm{B} \Sigma_{3}^{0}BΣ30 and it is Π 1 1 Π 1 1 Pi_(1)^(1)\Pi_{1}^{1}Π11-conservative over R C A 0 + B Σ 3 0 R C A 0 + B Σ 3 0 RCA_(0)+BSigma_(3)^(0)\mathrm{RCA}_{0}+B \Sigma_{3}^{0}RCA0+BΣ30. (Hirst [18] and Slaman/Yokoyama [40])
4 B Σ n 0 4 B Σ n 0 4BSigma_(n)^(0)4 \mathrm{~B} \Sigma_{n}^{0}4 BΣn0 is called a bounding principle, see [16] for the definition
The above theorem decides the consistency strength (or proof-theoretic strength) of R T 2 2 R T 2 2 RT_(2)^(2)\mathrm{RT}_{2}^{2}RT22 and R T 2 R T 2 RT^(2)\mathrm{RT}^{2}RT2, and more precise studies have been carried out for R T 2 2 R T 2 2 RT_(2)^(2)\mathrm{RT}_{2}^{2}RT22 with respect to the size of proofs [24,25]. However, the exact L 1 L 1 L_(1)\mathscr{L}_{1}L1-consequences of R C A 0 + R T 2 2 R C A 0 + R T 2 2 RCA_(0)+RT_(2)^(2)\mathrm{RCA}_{0}+\mathrm{RT}_{2}^{2}RCA0+RT22 are still not identified. Meanwhile, several hybrid approaches of computability and proof/model-theory are currently being developed such as [ 9 , 10 ] [ 9 , 10 ] [9,10][9,10][9,10] which may help to calibrate the L 1 L 1 L_(1)\mathscr{L}_{1}L1-consequences of various combinatorial principles.

3. THE PARIS-HARRINGTON PRINCIPLE IN SECOND-ORDER ARITHMETIC

In this section, we consider the Paris-Harrington principle in the setting of secondorder arithmetic. The main difference is that we can now consider the Paris-Harrington principle within an infinite set. Then, Theorems 2.1 and 2.2 are reformulated as Theorems 3.2-3.6.

3.1. Second-order formulations of P H P H PH\mathbf{P H}PH

Recall that P H k n P H k n PH_(k)^(n)\mathrm{PH}_{k}^{n}PHkn asserts that there exists an arbitrary large finite set which is 1-dense ( n , k ) ( n , k ) (n,k)(n, k)(n,k). Indeed, a 1-dense ( n , k ) ( n , k ) (n,k)(n, k)(n,k) set should exist within any infinite subset of N N N\mathbb{N}N by the infinite Ramsey theorem (see the proof of Proposition 3.1 below). We reformulate P H k n P H k n PH_(k)^(n)\mathrm{PH}_{k}^{n}PHkn based on this idea in second-order arithmetic.
Definition 3.1 (The Paris-Harrington principle, second-order form). Let n 1 n ≥ 1 n >= 1n \geq 1n≥1 or n = n = ∞ n=oon=\inftyn=∞, k 2 k ≥ 2 k >= 2k \geq 2k≥2 or k = k = ∞ k=ook=\inftyk=∞ and m N m ∈ N m inNm \in \mathbb{N}m∈N. Then, the Paris-Harrington principle, m P H ¯ k n m P H ¯ k n m bar(PH)_(k)^(n)m \overline{\mathrm{PH}}_{k}^{n}mPH¯kn and I t P H ¯ k n I t P H ¯ k n It bar(PH)_(k)^(n)\mathrm{It} \overline{\mathrm{PH}}_{k}^{n}ItPH¯kn, is defined as follows:
  • m P H ¯ k n m P H ¯ k n m bar(PH)_(k)^(n)m \overline{\mathrm{PH}}_{k}^{n}mPH¯kn : for any infinite set X 0 X 0 X_(0)X_{0}X0, there exists a finite set F X 0 F ⊆ X 0 F subeX_(0)F \subseteq X_{0}F⊆X0 such that F F FFF is m m mmm-dense ( n , k ) ( n , k ) (n,k)(n, k)(n,k).
  • I t P H ¯ k n :≡ m m P H ¯ k n I t P H ¯ k n :≡ ∀ m m P H ¯ k n It bar(PH)_(k)^(n):≡AA mm bar(PH)_(k)^(n)\mathrm{It} \overline{\mathrm{PH}}_{k}^{n}: \equiv \forall m m \overline{\mathrm{PH}}_{k}^{n}ItPH¯kn:≡∀mmPH¯kn.
Just like for P H P H PH\mathrm{PH}PH, we write P H ¯ k n P H ¯ k n bar(PH)_(k)^(n)\overline{\mathrm{PH}}_{k}^{n}PH¯kn for 1 P H ¯ k n , P H ¯ n 1 P H ¯ k n , P H ¯ n 1 bar(PH)_(k)^(n), bar(PH)^(n)1 \overline{\mathrm{PH}}_{k}^{n}, \overline{\mathrm{PH}}^{n}1PH¯kn,PH¯n for P H ¯ n P H ¯ ∞ n bar(PH)_(oo)^(n)\overline{\mathrm{PH}}_{\infty}^{n}PH¯∞n, and so on.
We first see that any of these variants of the Paris-Harrington theorem are true since they are consequences of the infinite Ramsey theorem by the following "compactness" argument.
For given n 1 n ≥ 1 n >= 1n \geq 1n≥1 and k 2 k ≥ 2 k >= 2k \geq 2k≥2, an ( n , k ) ( n , k ) (n,k)(n, k)(n,k)-coloring tree T T TTT on a set X X XXX is a family of functions of the form p : [ m X ] n k ( m N ) p : [ m ∩ X ] n → k ( m ∈ N ) p:[m nn X]^(n)rarr k(m inN)p:[m \cap X]^{n} \rightarrow k(m \in \mathbb{N})p:[m∩X]n→k(m∈N) such that for any p T p ∈ T p in Tp \in Tp∈T and N ℓ ∈ N ℓinN\ell \in \mathbb{N}ℓ∈N with [ X ] n dom ( p ) , p [ X ] n [ ℓ ∩ X ] n ⊆ dom ⁡ ( p ) , p ↾ [ ℓ ∩ X ] n [ℓnn X]^(n)sube dom(p),p↾[ℓnn X]^(n)[\ell \cap X]^{n} \subseteq \operatorname{dom}(p), p \upharpoonright[\ell \cap X]^{n}[ℓ∩X]n⊆dom⁡(p),p↾[ℓ∩X]n is also a member of T T TTT. Then, W K L 0 W K L 0 WKL_(0)\mathrm{WKL}_{0}WKL0 proves that any infinite ( n , k ) ( n , k ) (n,k)(n, k)(n,k)-coloring tree T T TTT on an infinite set X X XXX has a path f : [ X ] n k f : [ X ] n → k f:[X]^(n)rarr kf:[X]^{n} \rightarrow kf:[X]n→k in the sense that f [ m X ] n T f ↾ [ m ∩ X ] n ∈ T f↾[m nn X]^(n)in Tf \upharpoonright[m \cap X]^{n} \in Tf↾[m∩X]n∈T for any m N m ∈ N m inNm \in \mathbb{N}m∈N.
Proposition 3.1. Let n 1 n ≥ 1 n >= 1n \geq 1n≥1 or n = , k 2 n = ∞ , k ≥ 2 n=oo,k >= 2n=\infty, k \geq 2n=∞,k≥2 or k = k = ∞ k=ook=\inftyk=∞ and m N m ∈ N m inNm \in \mathbb{N}m∈N. W K L 0 + R T k n W K L 0 + R T k n WKL_(0)+RT_(k)^(n)\mathrm{WKL}_{0}+\mathrm{RT}_{k}^{n}WKL0+RTkn proves m P H ¯ k n m + 1 P H ¯ k n m P H ¯ k n → m + 1 P H ¯ k n m bar(PH)_(k)^(n)rarr m+1 bar(PH)_(k)^(n)m \overline{\mathrm{PH}}_{k}^{n} \rightarrow m+1 \overline{\mathrm{PH}}_{k}^{n}mPH¯kn→m+1PH¯kn. In particular, W K L 0 + R T k n W K L 0 + R T k n WKL_(0)+RT_(k)^(n)\mathrm{WKL}_{0}+\mathrm{RT}_{k}^{n}WKL0+RTkn proves P H ¯ k n P H ¯ k n bar(PH)_(k)^(n)\overline{\mathrm{PH}}_{k}^{n}PH¯kn, and W K L 0 + R T k n + I Σ 1 1 W K L 0 + R T k n + I Σ 1 1 WKL_(0)+RT_(k)^(n)+ISigma_(1)^(1)\mathrm{WKL}_{0}+\mathrm{RT}_{k}^{n}+\mathrm{I} \Sigma_{1}^{1}WKL0+RTkn+IΣ11 proves I t P H ¯ k n I t P H ¯ k n It bar(PH)_(k)^(n)\mathrm{It} \overline{\mathrm{PH}}_{k}^{n}ItPH¯kn.
Proof. We prove for the case n 1 n ≥ 1 n >= 1n \geq 1n≥1 and k 2 k ≥ 2 k >= 2k \geq 2k≥2. Assume that m + 1 P H ¯ k n m + 1 P H ¯ k n m+1 bar(PH)_(k)^(n)m+1 \overline{\mathrm{PH}}_{k}^{n}m+1PH¯kn fails on some infinite set X X XXX. Let T T TTT be an ( n , k ) ( n , k ) (n,k)(n, k)(n,k)-coloring tree on X X XXX such that p T p ∈ T p in Tp \in Tp∈T if and only if there is no p p ppp homogeneous set which is m m mmm-dense ( n , k ) ( n , k ) (n,k)(n, k)(n,k). Then, T T TTT is infinite since any finite subset of X X XXX is not m + 1 m + 1 m+1m+1m+1-dense ( n , k ) ( n , k ) (n,k)(n, k)(n,k), and thus it has a path f : [ X ] n k f : [ X ] n → k f:[X]^(n)rarr kf:[X]^{n} \rightarrow kf:[X]n→k. By RT k n k n _(k)^(n){ }_{k}^{n}kn, there is an infinite set H X H ⊆ X H sube XH \subseteq XH⊆X which is f f fff-homogeneous. Then m P H k n m P H k n mPH_(k)^(n)m \mathrm{PH}_{k}^{n}mPHkn fails on H H HHH by the definition of f f fff.
Proving P H ¯ k n P H ¯ k n bar(PH)_(k)^(n)\overline{\mathrm{PH}}_{k}^{n}PH¯kn just from the induction is much harder, but if n = 1 , 2 , , Σ n 0 n = 1 , 2 , … , ∣ Σ n 0 n=1,2,dots,∣Sigma_(n)^(0)n=1,2, \ldots, \mid \Sigma_{n}^{0}n=1,2,…,∣Σn0 still proves P H ¯ k n + 1 P H ¯ k n + 1 bar(PH)_(k)^(n+1)\overline{\mathrm{PH}}_{k}^{n+1}PH¯kn+1 for k = 2 , 3 , k = 2 , 3 , … k=2,3,dotsk=2,3, \ldotsk=2,3,… On the other hand, stronger induction does not help with the absence of the infinite Ramsey theorem. Indeed, R C A 0 + I Σ 1 R C A 0 + I Σ ∞ 1 RCA_(0)+ISigma_(oo)^(1)\mathrm{RCA}_{0}+I \Sigma_{\infty}^{1}RCA0+IΣ∞1 does not prove P H ¯ P H ¯ bar(PH)\overline{\mathrm{PH}}PH¯ or even PH. 5 5 ^(5){ }^{5}5
Within RCA 0 0 _(0){ }_{0}0, the statement of r Π n 1 r Π n 1 rPi_(n)^(1)\mathrm{r} \Pi_{n}^{1}rΠn1-correctness of a theory T ( r Π n 1 T r Π n 1 T(rPi_(n)^(1):}T\left(\mathrm{r} \Pi_{n}^{1}\right.T(rΠn1 - corr ( T ) ) corr ⁡ ( T ) {: corr(T))\left.\operatorname{corr}(T)\right)corr⁡(T)) can be defined like in Definition 2.3, and r Π n 1 r Π n 1 rPi_(n)^(1)\mathrm{r} \Pi_{n}^{1}rΠn1 - corr ( T ) corr ⁡ ( T ) corr(T)\operatorname{corr}(T)corr⁡(T) is an r Π n 1 r Π n 1 rPi_(n)^(1)\mathrm{r} \Pi_{n}^{1}rΠn1-statement. Second-order versions of the Paris-Harrington principle are closely related to r Π 1 1 r Π 1 1 rPi_(1)^(1)\mathrm{r} \Pi_{1}^{1}rΠ11-correctness of the infinite Ramsey theorem and other systems, and also related to well-orderedness of ordinals, which is naturally formalizable within R C A 0 R C A 0 RCA_(0)\mathrm{RCA}_{0}RCA0. Here we summarize the relations between the ParisHarrington principles, r Π 1 1 r Π 1 1 rPi_(1)^(1)\mathrm{r} \Pi_{1}^{1}rΠ11-correctness and well-foundedness of ordinals.
Theorem 3.2. The following are equivalent over R C A 0 R C A 0 RCA_(0)\mathrm{RCA}_{0}RCA0 :
  1. P H ¯ 2 P H ¯ 2 bar(PH)^(2)\overline{\mathrm{PH}}^{2}PH¯2.
  2. I t P H ¯ 2 2 I t P H ¯ 2 2 It bar(PH)_(2)^(2)\mathrm{It} \overline{\mathrm{PH}}_{2}^{2}ItPH¯22.
  3. r Π 1 1 corr ( Σ 1 0 ) r Π 1 1 − corr ⁡ ∣ Σ 1 0 rPi_(1)^(1)-corr(∣Sigma_(1)^(0))\mathrm{r} \Pi_{1}^{1}-\operatorname{corr}\left(\mid \Sigma_{1}^{0}\right)rΠ11−corr⁡(∣Σ10).
  4. r Π 1 1 corr ( W K L 0 + R T 2 2 ) r Π 1 1 − corr ⁡ W K L 0 + R T 2 2 rPi_(1)^(1)-corr(WKL_(0)+RT_(2)^(2))\mathrm{r} \Pi_{1}^{1}-\operatorname{corr}\left(\mathrm{WKL}_{0}+\mathrm{RT}_{2}^{2}\right)rΠ11−corr⁡(WKL0+RT22).
  5. Well-foundedness of ω ω ω ω omega^(omega)\omega^{\omega}ωω.
Theorem 3.3. The following are equivalent over R C A 0 R C A 0 RCA_(0)\mathrm{RCA}_{0}RCA0 :
  1. P H ¯ 3 P H ¯ 3 bar(PH)^(3)\overline{\mathrm{PH}}^{3}PH¯3.
  2. I t P H ¯ 2 I t P H ¯ 2 It bar(PH)^(2)\mathrm{It} \overline{\mathrm{PH}}^{2}ItPH¯2.
  3. r Π 1 1 corr ( Σ 2 0 ) r Π 1 1 − corr ⁡ ∣ Σ 2 0 rPi_(1)^(1)-corr(∣Sigma_(2)^(0))\mathrm{r} \Pi_{1}^{1}-\operatorname{corr}\left(\mid \Sigma_{2}^{0}\right)rΠ11−corr⁡(∣Σ20).
  4. r Π 1 1 corr ( W K L 0 + R T 2 ) r Π 1 1 − corr ⁡ W K L 0 + R T 2 rPi_(1)^(1)-corr(WKL_(0)+RT^(2))\mathrm{r} \Pi_{1}^{1}-\operatorname{corr}\left(\mathrm{WKL}_{0}+\mathrm{RT}^{2}\right)rΠ11−corr⁡(WKL0+RT2).
  5. Well-foundedness of ω ω ω ω ω ω omega^(omega^(omega))\omega^{\omega^{\omega}}ωωω.
Theorem 3.4. The following are equivalent over RCA 0 RCA 0 RCA_(0)\operatorname{RCA}_{0}RCA0 (for n = 1 , 2 , n = 1 , 2 , … n=1,2,dotsn=1,2, \ldotsn=1,2,… ):
  1. P H ¯ n + 1 P H ¯ n + 1 bar(PH)^(n+1)\overline{\mathrm{PH}}^{n+1}PH¯n+1.
  2. r Π 1 1 corr ( Σ n 0 ) r Π 1 1 − corr ⁡ ∣ Σ n 0 rPi_(1)^(1)-corr(∣Sigma_(n)^(0))\mathrm{r} \Pi_{1}^{1}-\operatorname{corr}\left(\mid \Sigma_{n}^{0}\right)rΠ11−corr⁡(∣Σn0).
  3. Well-foundedness of ω n + 1 ω n + 1 omega_(n+1)\omega_{n+1}ωn+1.
5 Indeed, W K L 0 + I Σ 1 W K L 0 + I Σ ∞ 1 WKL_(0)+ISigma_(oo)^(1)W K L_{0}+I \Sigma_{\infty}^{1}WKL0+IΣ∞1 is a Π 1 1 Π 1 1 Pi_(1)^(1)\Pi_{1}^{1}Π11-conservative extension of R C A 0 + I Σ 0 R C A 0 + I Σ ∞ 0 RCA_(0)+ISigma_(oo)^(0)R C A_{0}+I \Sigma_{\infty}^{0}RCA0+IΣ∞0.
Theorem 3.5. The following are equivalent over R C A 0 R C A 0 RCA_(0)\mathrm{RCA}_{0}RCA0 :
  1. P H ¯ P H ¯ bar(PH)\overline{\mathrm{PH}}PH¯.
  2. It P H ¯ k n ( n = 3 , 4 , , k = 2 , 3 , , ) It ⁡ P H ¯ k n ( n = 3 , 4 , … , k = 2 , 3 , … , ∞ ) It bar(PH)_(k)^(n)(n=3,4,dots,k=2,3,dots,oo)\operatorname{It} \overline{\mathrm{PH}}_{k}^{n}(n=3,4, \ldots, k=2,3, \ldots, \infty)It⁡PH¯kn(n=3,4,…,k=2,3,…,∞).
  3. r Π 1 1 corr ( A C A 0 ) r Π 1 1 − corr ⁡ A C A 0 rPi_(1)^(1)-corr(ACA_(0))\mathrm{r} \Pi_{1}^{1}-\operatorname{corr}\left(\mathrm{ACA}_{0}\right)rΠ11−corr⁡(ACA0).
  4. Well-foundedness of ε 0 ε 0 epsi_(0)\varepsilon_{0}ε0.
Theorem 3.6. Over R C A 0 R C A 0 RCA_(0)\mathrm{RCA}_{0}RCA0, I t P H ¯ I t P H ¯ It bar(PH)\mathrm{It} \overline{\mathrm{PH}}ItPH¯ is equivalent to r Π 1 1 corr ( A C A 0 ) r Π 1 1 − corr ⁡ A C A 0 ′ rPi_(1)^(1)-corr(ACA_(0)^('))\mathrm{r} \Pi_{1}^{1}-\operatorname{corr}\left(\mathrm{ACA}_{0}^{\prime}\right)rΠ11−corr⁡(ACA0′).
Over A C A 0 A C A 0 ACA_(0)\mathrm{ACA}_{0}ACA0, any Π 1 1 Π 1 1 Pi_(1)^(1)\Pi_{1}^{1}Π11-formula is equivalent to a r Π 1 1 r Π 1 1 rPi_(1)^(1)\mathrm{r} \Pi_{1}^{1}rΠ11-formula. Thus, A C A 0 + P H ¯ A C A 0 + P H ¯ ACA_(0)+ bar(PH)\mathrm{ACA}_{0}+\overline{\mathrm{PH}}ACA0+PH¯ implies Π n Π n Pi_(n)\Pi_{n}Πn-corr(PA) for any n N n ∈ N n inNn \in \mathfrak{N}n∈N, in other words, the L 1 L 1 L_(1)\mathscr{L}_{1}L1-correctness schema of PA.
Many of the equivalences in the above theorems have been known to experts in one formulation or another for a long time, although at least some of them are hard to find in the literature. On the other hand, 3 4 3 ↔ 4 3harr43 \leftrightarrow 43↔4 of Theorems 3.2 and 3.3 are more recent, and not easy since they correspond to the study of the first-order strength of the infinite Ramsey theorem for pairs, which we have seen in Theorem 2.6. The equivalences between variants of P H P H PH\mathrm{PH}PH and the well-orderedness of ordinals are obtained by measuring the largeness of finite sets using ordinals, as presented in the next subsection. In Section 5, we explain how to prove the equivalences between variants of P H P H PH\mathrm{PH}PH and the correctness statements by the method of indicators.

3.2. PH and the notion of α α alpha\alphaα-largeness

The Paris-Harrington principle is closely related to a notion of largeness for finite sets defined using ordinals. In [22], Ketonen and Solovay introduced the notion of α α alpha\alphaα-largeness for ordinal α < ε 0 α < ε 0 alpha < epsi_(0)\alpha<\varepsilon_{0}α<ε0 and calibrated how large set is needed for P H P H PH\mathrm{PH}PH.
Definition 3.2 ( α α alpha\alphaα-largeness, within RCA 0 6 RCA 0 ⁡ 6 RCA_(0)^(6)\operatorname{RCA}_{0}{ }^{6}RCA0⁡6 ). For α < ε 0 α < ε 0 alpha < epsi_(0)\alpha<\varepsilon_{0}α<ε0 and m N m ∈ N m inNm \in \mathbb{N}m∈N, define α [ m ] = 0 α [ m ] = 0 alpha[m]=0\alpha[m]=0α[m]=0 if α = 0 α = 0 alpha=0\alpha=0α=0, α [ m ] = β α [ m ] = β alpha[m]=beta\alpha[m]=\betaα[m]=β if α = β + 1 , α [ m ] = β + ω γ m α = β + 1 , α [ m ] = β + ω γ â‹… m alpha=beta+1,alpha[m]=beta+omega^(gamma)*m\alpha=\beta+1, \alpha[m]=\beta+\omega^{\gamma} \cdot mα=β+1,α[m]=β+ωγ⋅m if α = β + ω γ + 1 α = β + ω γ + 1 alpha=beta+omega^(gamma+1)\alpha=\beta+\omega^{\gamma+1}α=β+ωγ+1, and α [ m ] = β + ω γ [ m ] α [ m ] = β + ω γ [ m ] alpha[m]=beta+omega^(gamma[m])\alpha[m]=\beta+\omega^{\gamma[m]}α[m]=β+ωγ[m] if α = β + ω γ α = β + ω γ alpha=beta+omega^(gamma)\alpha=\beta+\omega^{\gamma}α=β+ωγ and γ γ gamma\gammaγ is a limit ordinal. Then a finite set X = { x 0 < < x 1 } N ( { x i } i X = x 0 < ⋯ < x â„“ − 1 ⊆ N x i i X={x_(0) < cdots < x_(â„“-1)}subeN({x_(i)}_(i):}X=\left\{x_{0}<\cdots<x_{\ell-1}\right\} \subseteq \mathbb{N}\left(\left\{x_{i}\right\}_{i}\right.X={x0<⋯<xℓ−1}⊆N({xi}i is the increasing enumeration of X X XXX ) is called α α alpha\alphaα-large if α [ x 0 ] [ x 1 ] = 0 α x 0 … x â„“ − 1 = 0 alpha[x_(0)]dots[x_(â„“-1)]=0\alpha\left[x_{0}\right] \ldots\left[x_{\ell-1}\right]=0α[x0]…[xℓ−1]=0.
The well-foundedness of ordinals and the notion of α α alpha\alphaα-largeness is closely related. Indeed, if α α alpha\alphaα is well-founded and X = { x 0 < x 1 < } X = x 0 < x 1 < ⋯ X={x_(0) < x_(1) < cdots}X=\left\{x_{0}<x_{1}<\cdots\right\}X={x0<x1<⋯} is infinite, then α [ x 0 ] [ x 1 ] α x 0 x 1 … alpha[x_(0)][x_(1)]dots\alpha\left[x_{0}\right]\left[x_{1}\right] \ldotsα[x0][x1]… should terminate at 0 within finitely many steps, which means that X X XXX contains an α α alpha\alphaα-large set. It is not difficult to see the converse, and we have the following.
Proposition 3.7. Let α < ε 0 α < ε 0 alpha < epsi_(0)\alpha<\varepsilon_{0}α<ε0. The following assertions are equivalent over R C A 0 R C A 0 RCA_(0)\mathrm{RCA}_{0}RCA0 :
  1. Any infinite set contains an α α alpha\alphaα-large finite subset.
  2. α α alpha\alphaα is well-founded.
6 Indeed, this definition still works within EFA with primitive recursive descriptions of ordinals.
The relations between P H P H PH\mathrm{PH}PH and α α alpha\alphaα-largeness are well-studied and have been the topic of ordinal analysis; see, e.g., [ 3 5 , 22 , 25 , 27 , 41 ] [ 3 − 5 , 22 , 25 , 27 , 41 ] [3-5,22,25,27,41][3-5,22,25,27,41][3−5,22,25,27,41]. Here we list several (digested) results from those papers. Let ω 0 α = α ω 0 α = α omega_(0)^(alpha)=alpha\omega_{0}^{\alpha}=\alphaω0α=α and ω n + 1 α = ω ω n α ω n + 1 α = ω ω n α omega_(n+1)^(alpha)=omega^(omega_(n)^(alpha))\omega_{n+1}^{\alpha}=\omega^{\omega_{n}^{\alpha}}ωn+1α=ωωnα, and let ω n = ω n 1 ω n = ω n 1 omega_(n)=omega_(n)^(1)\omega_{n}=\omega_{n}^{1}ωn=ωn1.
Theorem 3.8. The following are provable within R C A 0 R C A 0 RCA_(0)\mathrm{RCA}_{0}RCA0. Let F N F ⊆ N F subeNF \subseteq \mathbb{N}F⊆N be a finite set with min F 3 min F ≥ 3 min F >= 3\min F \geq 3minF≥3, and let n , k 1 n , k ≥ 1 n,k >= 1n, k \geq 1n,k≥1 and m 0 m ≥ 0 m >= 0m \geq 0m≥0.
  1. If F F FFF is ω k + 4 ω k + 4 omega^(k+4)\omega^{k+4}ωk+4-large, then F F FFF is 1-dense(2, k k kkk ). (Ketonen/Solovay [22])
  2. If F F FFF is 1 -dense ( 2 , k + 1 ) ( 2 , k + 1 ) (2,k+1)(2, k+1)(2,k+1), then F F FFF is ω k ω k omega^(k)\omega^{k}ωk-large. (folklore)
  3. If F F FFF is ω n ω k + 1 ω n ω â‹… k + 1 omega_(n)^(omega*k+1)\omega_{n}^{\omega \cdot k+1}ωnω⋅k+1-large, then F F FFF is 1-dense ( n + 1 , k ) ( n + 1 , k ) (n+1,k)(n+1, k)(n+1,k). (essentially [22])
  4. If F F FFF is 1 -dense ( n + 1 , 3 n ) n + 1 , 3 n (n+1,3^(n))\left(n+1,3^{n}\right)(n+1,3n), then F F FFF is ω n ω n omega_(n)\omega_{n}ωn-large. (Kotlarski/Piekart/Weiermann [27])
  5. If F F FFF is ω 300 m ω 300 m omega^(300^(m))\omega^{300^{m}}ω300m-large, then F F FFF is m m mmm-dense(2, 2). (KoÅ‚odziejczyk/Yokoyama [25])
Many implications of Theorems 3.2-3.5 follow from the above theorem. Indeed, 1 2 5 1 ↔ 2 ↔ 5 1harr2harr51 \leftrightarrow 2 \leftrightarrow 51↔2↔5 of Theorem 3.2 follows from statements 1,2 and 5 of the above, and 5 1 5 → 1 5rarr15 \rightarrow 15→1 of Theorem 3.3, 3 1 3 → 1 3rarr13 \rightarrow 13→1 of Theorem 3.4, and 1 4 2 1 ↔ 4 → 2 1harr4rarr21 \leftrightarrow 4 \rightarrow 21↔4→2 of Theorem 3.5 follow from statements 3,4 , and 6 . We see other implications in Section 5 .
Well-foundedness of ordinals is also heavily related with correctness statements and their relations are widely studied. For the recent developments, see, e.g., [1, 31].

4. GENERALIZATIONS OF PH

In this section, we see several generalizations of the Paris-Harrington principle by modifying the relative largeness condition " | H | > min H | H | > min H |H| > min H|H|>\min H|H|>minH." They are still natural strengthenings of the finite Ramsey theorem and quickly follow from the infinite Ramsey theorem and a compactness argument of the kind presented in Proposition 3.1. Nonetheless, a strong enough form of the Paris-Harrington principle recovers the infinite Ramsey theorem (Theorem 4.5) and its iterations provide the r Π 2 1 r Π 2 1 rPi_(2)^(1)\mathrm{r} \Pi_{2}^{1}rΠ21-correctness of the infinite Ramsey theorem (Theorems 4.6-4.8).

4.1. Phase transition

A natural generalization of P H k n P H k n PH_(k)^(n)\mathrm{PH}_{k}^{n}PHkn would be provided by changing the relative largeness condition | H | > min H | H | > min H |H| > min H|H|>\min H|H|>minH to | H | > f ( min H ) | H | > f ( min H ) |H| > f(min H)|H|>f(\min H)|H|>f(minH) for some function f f fff. We write P H k , f n P H k , f n PH_(k,f)^(n)\mathrm{PH}_{k, f}^{n}PHk,fn or P H ¯ k , f n P H ¯ k , f n bar(PH)_(k,f)^(n)\overline{\mathrm{PH}}_{k, f}^{n}PH¯k,fn for the statement defined as P H k n P H k n PH_(k)^(n)\mathrm{PH}_{k}^{n}PHkn or P H ¯ k n P H ¯ k n bar(PH)_(k)^(n)\overline{\mathrm{PH}}_{k}^{n}PH¯kn but with | H | > min H | H | > min H |H| > min H|H|>\min H|H|>minH replaced by | H | > f ( min H ) | H | > f ( min H ) |H| > f(min H)|H|>f(\min H)|H|>f(minH). Unfortunately, this does not make PH stronger in most cases. Indeed, one can easily prove the following.
Proposition 4.1.
  1. Let n = 2 , 3 , n = 2 , 3 , … n=2,3,dotsn=2,3, \ldotsn=2,3,… or n = n = ∞ n=oon=\inftyn=∞, and let f f fff be a primitive recursive function. Then 1 Σ 1 + P H n 1 Σ 1 + P H n 1Sigma_(1)+PH^(n)1 \Sigma_{1}+\mathrm{PH}^{n}1Σ1+PHn proves P H f n P H f n PH_(f)^(n)\mathrm{PH}_{f}^{n}PHfn.
  2. Let f f fff be a provably recursive function of P A P A PA\mathrm{PA}PA. Then I Σ 1 + P H I Σ 1 + P H ISigma_(1)+PH\mathrm{I} \Sigma_{1}+\mathrm{PH}IΣ1+PH proves P H f P H f PH_(f)\mathrm{PH}_{f}PHf.
  3. Let n = 1 , 2 , n = 1 , 2 , … n=1,2,dotsn=1,2, \ldotsn=1,2,… or n = n = ∞ n=oon=\inftyn=∞ and let k = 2 , 3 , k = 2 , 3 , … k=2,3,dotsk=2,3, \ldotsk=2,3,… or k = k = ∞ k=ook=\inftyk=∞. Then R C A 0 + P H ¯ k n R C A 0 + P H ¯ k n RCA_(0)+ bar(PH)_(k)^(n)\mathrm{RCA}_{0}+\overline{\mathrm{PH}}_{k}^{n}RCA0+PH¯kn proves that for any function f , P H ¯ k , f n f , P H ¯ k , f n f, bar(PH)_(k,f)^(n)f, \overline{\mathrm{PH}}_{k, f}^{n}f,PH¯k,fn holds.
On the other hand, P H f P H f PH_(f)\mathrm{PH}_{f}PHf can be weaker if f f fff is slower growing than the identity function. Indeed, if f f fff is a constant function, then P H f P H f PH_(f)\mathrm{PH}_{f}PHf is just the finite Ramsey theorem, and thus it is provable within PA. Weiermann [44] revealed the border of the provability and unprovability in this context as part of his research program called phase transition.
Theorem 4.2 (Weiermann [44]). Let log n log n log_(n)\log _{n}logn be the inverse function of the nth iterated exponential function exp n ( x ) exp n ⁡ ( x ) exp^(n)(x)\exp ^{n}(x)expn⁡(x) where exp ( x ) = 2 x exp ⁡ ( x ) = 2 x exp(x)=2^(x)\exp (x)=2^{x}exp⁡(x)=2x, and let log log ∗ log_(**)\log _{*}log∗ be the inverse function of the superexponential (tower) function 2 x 2 x 2_(x)2_{x}2x.
  1. P H log n P H log n PH_(log_(n))\mathrm{PH}_{\log _{n}}PHlogn is not provable from P A P A PA\mathrm{PA}PA for any n 1 n ≥ 1 n >= 1n \geq 1n≥1.
  2. P H log P H log ∗ PH_(log_(**))\mathrm{PH}_{\log _{*}}PHlog∗ is provable from P A P A PA\mathrm{PA}PA.
A sharper border is revealed in [44], and similar analyses have been done for KM and other principles as well [35].

4.2. PH with generalized largeness

To obtain further generalization of P H P H PH\mathrm{PH}PH, we want to consider some condition of the form | H | > f ( H ) | H | > f ( H ) |H| > f(H)|H|>f(H)|H|>f(H) where f f fff assigns some "required size" for each finite set. Inspired by Terrence Tao's blog [43], Gaspar and Kohlenbach [14] introduced several "finitary" versions of the infinite pigeonhole principle ( R T 1 R T 1 RT^(1)\mathrm{RT}^{1}RT1 in our terminology) which are formulated based on this idea. Then, Pelupessy generalizes it to the infinite Ramsey theorem as follows.
Definition 4.1 (Gaspar/Kohlenbach [14], Pelupessy [36]). A function f : [ N ] < N N f : [ N ] < N → N f:[N] < NrarrNf:[\mathbb{N}]<\mathbb{N} \rightarrow \mathbb{N}f:[N]<N→N is said to be asymptotically stable if for any increasing sequence of finite sets F 0 F 1 F 0 ⊆ F 1 ⊆ … F_(0)subeF_(1)sube dotsF_{0} \subseteq F_{1} \subseteq \ldotsF0⊆F1⊆… { f ( F i ) } i N f F i i ∈ N {f(F_(i))}_(i inN)\left\{f\left(F_{i}\right)\right\}_{i \in \mathbb{N}}{f(Fi)}i∈N converges. Then, the finitary infinite Ramsey theorem F I R T k n F I R T k n FIRT_(k)^(n)\mathrm{FIRT}_{k}^{n}FIRTkn states the following:
  • IIRT k n k n _(k)^(n)_{k}^{n}kn : for any asymptotically stable function f : [ N ] < N N f : [ N ] < N → N f:[N]^( < N)rarrNf:[\mathbb{N}]^{<\mathbb{N}} \rightarrow \mathbb{N}f:[N]<N→N, there exists r N r ∈ N r inNr \in \mathbb{N}r∈N such that for any c : [ [ 0 , r ) N ] n k c : [ 0 , r ) N n → k c:[[0,r)_(N)]^(n)rarr kc:\left[[0, r)_{\mathbb{N}}\right]^{n} \rightarrow kc:[[0,r)N]n→k, there exists a homogeneous set H [ 0 , r ) N H ⊆ [ 0 , r ) N H sube[0,r)_(N)H \subseteq[0, r)_{\mathbb{N}}H⊆[0,r)N such that | H | > f ( H ) | H | > f ( H ) |H| > f(H)|H|>f(H)|H|>f(H).
  • FIRT n k F I R T k n , F I R T n F I R T k n FIRT ∞ n ≡ ∀ k F I R T k n , F I R T ∞ ∞ ≡ ∀ n F I R T k n FIRT_(oo)^(n)-=AA kFIRT_(k)^(n),FIRT_(oo)^(oo)-=AA nFIRT_(k)^(n)\operatorname{FIRT}_{\infty}^{n} \equiv \forall k \mathrm{FIRT}_{k}^{n}, \mathrm{FIRT}_{\infty}^{\infty} \equiv \forall n \mathrm{FIRT}_{k}^{n}FIRT∞n≡∀kFIRTkn,FIRT∞∞≡∀nFIRTkn.
The finitary infinite pigeonhole principle F I P P 2 F I P P 2 FIPP_(2)\mathrm{FIPP}_{2}FIPP2 in [14] is the same as F I R T 1 F I R T ∞ 1 FIRT_(oo)^(1)\mathrm{FIRT}_{\infty}^{1}FIRT∞1.
Gaspar/Kohlenbach and Pelupessy showed that F I R T k n F I R T k n FIRT_(k)^(n)\mathrm{FIRT}_{k}^{n}FIRTkn is equivalent to R T k n R T k n RT_(k)^(n)\mathrm{RT}_{k}^{n}RTkn over W K L 0 W K L 0 WKL_(0)\mathrm{WKL}_{0}WKL0 (we will see this in detail later). Thus, F I R T k n F I R T k n FIRT_(k)^(n)\mathrm{FIRT}_{k}^{n}FIRTkn could be considered as a "finitary" rephrasing of infinite combinatorics.
Remark 4.3. In [14], another form of the finitary infinite pigeonhole principle F I P P 3 F I P P 3 FIPP_(3)\mathrm{FIPP}_{3}FIPP3 is also studied, and the question is raised which is more appropriate as the finitary version of infinite
pigeonhole principle. However, F I P P 3 F I P P 3 FIPP_(3)\mathrm{FIPP}_{3}FIPP3 is equivalent to A C A 0 A C A 0 ACA_(0)\mathrm{ACA}_{0}ACA0 [45], and it does not fit with the general form of the Ramsey theorem.
Then, can we consider more general statements? Remember that the original idea of the finite Ramsey theorem or the Paris-Harrington principle is that if a large enough set is given, one must find a homogeneous set which is still "large" in some sense. Here, we consider a general concept of largeness for finite sets as follows.
Definition 4.2 (Largeness notion). A family of finite sets L [ N ] < N L ⊆ [ N ] < N Lsube[N]^( < N)\mathbb{L} \subseteq[\mathbb{N}]^{<\mathbb{N}}L⊆[N]<N is said to be a prelargeness notion if it is upward closed, in other words, F 0 L F 0 ∈ L F_(0)inLF_{0} \in \mathbb{L}F0∈L and F 0 F 1 F 0 ⊆ F 1 F_(0)subeF_(1)F_{0} \subseteq F_{1}F0⊆F1 implies F 1 L F 1 ∈ L F_(1)inLF_{1} \in \mathbb{L}F1∈L. A prelargeness notion L L L\mathbb{L}L is said to be a largeness notion if for any infinite set X N X ⊆ N X subeNX \subseteq \mathbb{N}X⊆N, there exists a finite set F X F ⊆ X F sube XF \subseteq XF⊆X such that F L F ∈ L F inLF \in \mathbb{L}F∈L.
The idea of the above definition is that an infinite set is always large enough and thus it should contain a "large finite set" in the sense of L L L\mathbb{L}L. For example, L ω = { F L ω = { F ∈ L_(omega)={F in\mathbb{L}_{\omega}=\{F \inLω={F∈ [ N ] < N : | F | > min F } [ N ] < N : | F | > min F {:[N]^( < N):|F| > min F}\left.[\mathbb{N}]^{<\mathbb{N}}:|F|>\min F\right\}[N]<N:|F|>minF} is a largeness notion. Note that " L L L\mathbb{L}L is a prelargeness notion" is just a Π 1 L Π 1 L Pi_(1)^(L)\Pi_{1}^{\mathbb{L}}Π1L-statement and thus it is available within E F A L E F A L EFA^(L)E F A^{\mathbb{L}}EFAL. On the other hand, " L L L\mathbb{L}L is a largeness notion" is an r Π 1 1 r Π 1 1 rPi_(1)^(1)\mathrm{r} \Pi_{1}^{1}rΠ11-statement, so it strictly requires the second-order language. Next, we generalize the density notion. The following definition can be made within E F A L E F A L EFA^(L)E F A^{\mathbb{L}}EFAL.
Definition 4.3 (Density with respect to L L L\mathbb{L}L ). Let n 1 n ≥ 1 n >= 1n \geq 1n≥1 or n = n = ∞ n=oon=\inftyn=∞ and k 2 k ≥ 2 k >= 2k \geq 2k≥2 or k = k = ∞ k=ook=\inftyk=∞. Let L L L\mathbb{L}L be a prelargeness notion. We define the density for ( n , k , L ) ( n , k , L ) (n,k,L)(n, k, \mathbb{L})(n,k,L) as follows:
  • a finite set F F FFF is said to be 0 -dense ( n , k , L ) ( n , k , L ) (n,k,L)(n, k, \mathbb{L})(n,k,L) if F L F ∈ L F inLF \in \mathbb{L}F∈L,
  • a finite set F F FFF is said to be m + 1 m + 1 m+1m+1m+1-dense ( n , k , L ) ( n , k , L ) (n,k,L)(n, k, \mathbb{L})(n,k,L) if for any c : [ F ] n k c : [ F ] n ′ → k ′ c:[F]^(n^('))rarrk^(')c:[F]^{n^{\prime}} \rightarrow k^{\prime}c:[F]n′→k′ where n min { n , min F } n ′ ≤ min { n , min F } n^(') <= min{n,min F}n^{\prime} \leq \min \{n, \min F\}n′≤min{n,minF} and k min { k , min F } k ′ ≤ min { k , min F } k^(') <= min{k,min F}k^{\prime} \leq \min \{k, \min F\}k′≤min{k,minF}, there exists a c c ccc-homogeneous set H F H ⊆ F H sube FH \subseteq FH⊆F such that H H HHH is m m mmm-dense ( n , k , L ) ( n , k , L ) (n,k,L)(n, k, \mathbb{L})(n,k,L).
The statement that F F FFF is m m mmm-dense ( n , k , L ) ( n , k , L ) (n,k,L)(n, k, \mathbb{L})(n,k,L) is Σ 0 L Σ 0 L Sigma_(0)^(L)\Sigma_{0}^{\mathbb{L}}Σ0L.
Now we define the generalized Paris-Harrington principle. The following definition can be made within RCA .
Definition 4.4 (Generalized PH). Let n 1 n ≥ 1 n >= 1n \geq 1n≥1 or n = , k 2 n = ∞ , k ≥ 2 n=oo,k >= 2n=\infty, k \geq 2n=∞,k≥2 or k = k = ∞ k=ook=\inftyk=∞ and m N m ∈ N m inNm \in \mathbb{N}m∈N. Then, the generalized Paris-Harrington principle, m G P H k n m G P H k n mGPH_(k)^(n)m \mathrm{GPH}_{k}^{n}mGPHkn and I t G P H k n I t G P H k n ItGPH_(k)^(n)\mathrm{ItGPH}_{k}^{n}ItGPHkn, is defined as follows:
  • m G P H k n m G P H k n mGPH_(k)^(n)m \mathrm{GPH}_{k}^{n}mGPHkn : for any largeness notion L L L\mathbb{L}L and for any infinite set X 0 X 0 X_(0)X_{0}X0, there exists a finite set F X 0 F ⊆ X 0 F subeX_(0)F \subseteq X_{0}F⊆X0 such that F F FFF is m m mmm-dense ( n , k , L ) ( n , k , L ) (n,k,L)(n, k, \mathbb{L})(n,k,L).
  • I t G P H k n :≡ m m G P H k n I t G P H k n :≡ ∀ m m G P H k n ItGPH_(k)^(n):≡AA mmGPH_(k)^(n)\mathrm{ItGPH}_{k}^{n}: \equiv \forall m m \mathrm{GPH}_{k}^{n}ItGPHkn:≡∀mmGPHkn.
Just like for P H P H PH\mathrm{PH}PH, we write G P H k n G P H k n GPH_(k)^(n)\mathrm{GPH}_{k}^{n}GPHkn for 1 G P H k n , G P H n 1 G P H k n , G P H n 1GPH_(k)^(n),GPH^(n)1 \mathrm{GPH}_{k}^{n}, \mathrm{GPH}^{n}1GPHkn,GPHn for G P H n G P H ∞ n GPH_(oo)^(n)\mathrm{GPH}_{\infty}^{n}GPH∞n and so on.
Unlike P H ¯ k n , G P H k n P H ¯ k n , G P H k n bar(PH)_(k)^(n),GPH_(k)^(n)\overline{\mathrm{PH}}_{k}^{n}, \mathrm{GPH}_{k}^{n}PH¯kn,GPHkn is "iterable." Indeed, G P H k n G P H k n GPH_(k)^(n)\mathrm{GPH}_{k}^{n}GPHkn states that if L L L\mathbb{L}L is a largeness notion, then the family of all 1-dense ( n , k , L ) ( n , k , L ) (n,k,L)(n, k, \mathbb{L})(n,k,L) sets is also a largeness notion, and thus G P H k n G P H k n GPH_(k)^(n)\mathrm{GPH}_{k}^{n}GPHkn can be applied to it again. Furthermore, any infinite subset X N X ⊆ N X subeNX \subseteq \mathbb{N}X⊆N is "isomorphic to N N N\mathbb{N}N " in the following sense; if h : N X h : N → X h:Nrarr Xh: \mathbb{N} \rightarrow Xh:N→X is a monotone increasing bijection and L L L\mathbb{L}L is a largeness notion,
then h 1 ( L ) h − 1 ( L ) h^(-1)(L)h^{-1}(\mathbb{L})h−1(L) is a largeness notion and for any F fin N , F F ⊆ fin  N , F Fsube_("fin ")N,FF \subseteq_{\text {fin }} \mathbb{N}, FF⊆fin N,F is 1-dense ( n , k , h 1 ( L ) ) n , k , h − 1 ( L ) (n,k,h^(-1)(L))\left(n, k, h^{-1}(\mathbb{L})\right)(n,k,h−1(L)) if and only if h ( F ) h ( F ) h(F)h(F)h(F) is 1-dense ( n , k , L ) ( n , k , L ) (n,k,L)(n, k, \mathbb{L})